User talk:DanTD/Archive. July 2011

File Move
Hey there, just letting you know I have performed that file move to the name you specified :-) GSorby -  Talk!   16:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding sources to an article
When you're adding additional sources to an article, such as you did with Interstate 75 in Florida, can you try to make the citation style in use in the article? At a minimum, a good citation needs an author, a title/work, a publisher, a publication date, and when online, an access date. Compare: with: A few comments are in order. First, you added the citation with the entire citation as the link, which isn't that great, but it's better than no citation. In the first example, the author was missing. I used "Region 7 staff" because myTBI is a service of on FDOT region, and as a corporately authored source, "staff" is appropriate when no individual(s) is/are singled out as authors or contract person(s) for the source. The website is named "myTBI", so that's the work and FDOT is the publisher. I don't recommend abbreviating corporate names unless the abbreviation is universally better known than the full name (IBM vs. International Business Machines, 3M vs. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, etc). I also added today's date as the access date because I checked the link today for information to complete the citation. If the link goes dead, we have a date we know it was working to attempt to find an archived copy at http://archive.org. For TV or newspaper websites, I tend to pre-emptively archive using http://webcitation.org/archive.php because these sites tend to either remove news articles or put them behind a paywall at a later date.
 * I-75 at County Road 54; interchange reconstruction and resurfacing (FDOT - My TBI.com)
 * Florida's New Interstate Exit Numbers for I-75 (Florida Department of Transportation

Regarding the second example, there is a contact person listed. The specific subdivision of FDOT is listed on the page, so I added that to the publisher information. In both cases, a publication or modification date isn't listed so I had to skip that detail. Is this overly picky? Maybe, but I've had to scrub references at a later date to take an article to GAN or FAC, and it's just easier to get the information listed ahead of time than try to fix it later. Between the time you add a reference to an article and someone else comes long willing to work the article through review processes, some source links may go dead. Without some of the information, it could be impossible to find an archived copy later. Maryland's DOT has revised how its website is organized, but with title and other details, it's been possible to find the new URLs for the existing sources.

In short, don't stop adding citations, but please consider adding information to the citations you are adding. The citation templates are great because you can plug the information into them, and they'll output consistent formatting.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be able to be abke to get all the detail correct before I do it in this manner, but I'll try to keep this in mind. The rest areas are going to be more difficult to source, because FDOT doesn't have individual links for them(http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statemaintenanceoffice/RestAreas.shtm, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/FacilitiesMap/FDOTFacilities.shtm) Regarding some rest areas in southwestern Florida, I just discovered that the one in Charlotte County is off the corner of an interchange after struggling to look for it on Google Maps. I almost throught the websites had outdated information, or that FDOT was lying about what was there. DanTD (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not my point. When you add any reference to any article, please try to make the citation information as complete as possible. That way others have more information should that source go offline in the intervening time between your addition and their work. It's easier to add a complete citation now than to try to complete incomplete citations at a later date when taking an article to GAN or FAC. In fact, it could be impossible to complete the citation later if it was online only and goes offline. Now, I've scrubbed through the I-75 in FL article twice, can you please add complete citations in the future when editing the article? That way others don't have to come behind you and clean/complete the citations. As for the additions themselves, my comments had nothing to do with them, just the added footnotes' formatting and content.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you need to repeat a reference, please use named references. If the reference is not named, in other words it has  as the tags around it, change the first tag to   and thereafter use   wherever you need the footnote repeated. I did this with the reference you added to the Suwannee County map in the I-75 in FL article. Not only does it shorten the over all wikicode by 220 characters, now the two Suwannee County map footnotes are combined with the same footnote number and a single entry in the reference list. (As a side note, the quotation marks around a reference's name are optional unless you place a space in the name. "Example" would work with or without them, but "Example 2" would not, and the names have to have at least one letter; pure numerical names won't work.)  Imzadi 1979   →   18:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know how to fix the repeated reference. But still thanks for the tips. Sometimes I can do it, other times I can't. DanTD (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair use on File:Jade West.jpg
Just an FYI. The last paragraph on the non-free promotional licensing paragraph in the file text is explicit that images used for simple identification of living people must (it is extremely rare to have an exception BTW) be a free-use image. An actor in the context of portraying a character image cannot be replaced by a free-use image as character images are always copyrighted so a fair use justified image is necessary for character articles. The actor's article, on the other hand, needs a free-use image as the presumption is that there is always a potential for or there already exists a free-use image that can be used. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you removed the image because it was licensed for the list of Victorious characters, but not for Elizabeth Gillies. That was why I added the extra FU license. DanTD (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. That image can't be used at all for Elizabeth Gillies is my point. There is no way and no license and no fair use justification that will work for using that particular image in an actor article. Actor articles must have a free-use image, preferably from commons or that can be moved to commons. Character images are fine and necessary for character articles, they just can't be used in the article about the actor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point. But just for the record, I didn't add the image. I simply fixed it. DanTD (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. User added the image and the initial FUR. I am a bit picky about images - in a prevous wikilife I used to do a lot of image cleaning/deleting on here and on commons so I am a bit sensitive about proper licenses and FURs. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter FEC Railway Station: Demotion threatened
Hi, You might be interested in this article which just appeared  I have gathered some more info on here  clariosophic (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Verification of sources
Dan, you can't just remove a failed verification tag from an article because you feel like it. That source does not verify the information in two of the three sentences where it was used, period. I quoted the applicable text from the webpage (all of it) on Talk:New York State Route 347. It only verified the third of the three uses, so I removed it from the other two. Please don't keep removing a clearly appropriate tag. In the future, please also remember that we should not be using self-published sources as citation in any of our articles. That restriction covers all of the various roadgeek community websites. No matter how well we hold the sites' creators, we still can't use them. Please find alternate sources to verify the same information, and please make sure that when you do, that the source actually contains the information in it.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the tag because I felt like it. I removed it because the source confirms it, self-published or not. If you noticed, I only removed those related to the proposed route, not the name which I can't confirm, and the cancellation via public opposition, which I know, but can't find the sources to. In the meantime. I'd still like to find a way to fix one of the other sources I added.

Please look at this version of the NY 347 article. Look specifically at the second paragraph of the "Extensions" subsection. Now, read the first sentence. It is: "Another extension was planned by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works in the early 1980s.[10]" Then look at the second sentence: "The highway, known as the North Brookhaven Expressway[citation needed] and proposed as CR 26,[10]" Now look at footnote 10, which is:

If you look at that link, you get the following about CR 26: "New Suffolk Road, Main Street LOCATION: Cutchogue to New Suffolk STATUS: Two-lane road (unsigned) NOTES: This route is maintained by the Town of Southold. In the early 1980's, CR 26 was the proposed designation for the NY 25A bypass in Rocky Point." Please tell me where in that extensive discussion about CR 26 is there any information that verifies an extension related to NY 347 being planned by the DPW in the 1980s as the North Brookhaven Expressway and numbered CR 26. Because we can't use that footnote to verify that information, it has failed verification.

Scroll down that paragraph in the article again. You'll find the sentence: "A very faint vestige lives on, however, in the Rocky Point Bypass section of NY 25A,[10]" which can be verified against the "In the early 1980's, CR 26 was the proposed designation for the NY 25A bypass in Rocky Point." text in the source. So of the three places where that footnote was used, two of them can't be verified with that source. It was those two usages that were tagged by Mitchazenia that I later removed.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)