User talk:Omnedon/2007

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dacc-logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dacc-logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette
Hi, I thought the user was adding contents that wasn't academically appropriate, the sort of materials that isn't found in most reference works and never before appeared on previous versions of the article. If I sound too heated, my apology. I hope you keep an eye out on those articles though.--TheLeopard 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Have you added your name to the list of martial artists on Wikipedia? Quietmartialartist 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I had not done so; thank you for the tip! Omnedon 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:USSH
When creating highway articles, please adhere to this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indiana State Road 441
A tag has been placed on Indiana State Road 441, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rjd0060 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re IN-28
WP:INSH isn't supposed to require an attractions section. I've removed it from that page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not include attractions? It seems like useful information for an encyclopedic entry about a route. Omnedon 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not a travel guide. However, there was an "attractions" section in the WikiProject page at the time that I placed the waterfall item, which is a significant local landmark -- something that deserves mention, per WP:NOT.  No, Indiana's highest waterfall is hardly the Eiffel Tower, but then again this isn't Paris. :) Omnedon 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the waterfall has nothing to do with the road, is not part of the road, etc. The Eiffel Tower is part of Paris. The attractions belong at Wikitravel. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, though, the reason I added that item was that some existing Indiana highway articles have such entries, and the WikiProject page itself (at the time) stated clearly and without qualification, "Any attractions along the route should be noted in this section." So, I naturally added one that I was aware of.  I acted in good faith.  Omnedon 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Township map
Adding a township map to the Warren County, Indiana page was a very good idea -- thanks! Huwmanbeing 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

spelling
Thanks for the fixes I thought I had fixed most before I saved it, saw your edit & realise what I'd done ah well back to work :P --Nate1481(t/c) 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality before quantity
We greatly appreciate the contributions that you have made to WP:INSH. However, it would be greatly be appreciated if you could improve the current IN road articles before you create new ones. Thanks, Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've contributed over 400 edits to the Indiana state roads project so far, including the addition of infoboxes to over 50 articles; the vast majority of these edits have expanded and improved existing articles. There's room for both creation and improvement. Omnedon 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hankumdo
Hi Omnedon. I just changed the M-R romanization of 한검도 (in the "koreanname" infobox) from "hankǒmdo" to "han'gǒmdo". I was just hoping you'd confirm that I did so correctly - I'm far from a Korean language expert.Bradford44 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Bradford. I'm no expert either; I'm still learning, and haven't studied the McCune-Reischauer technique much.  From what I can tell, though, that seems to be quite correct.
 * On a different note, do you feel there is anything aside from a need for better and more reliable sources that would keep the Taekwondo article from reaching "good article" status? It sure would be nice to get there this year, but I haven't been involved in that process before.  Have you?  Omnedon 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. To your question, yes, I participated a great deal in putting aikido through the GA (and later FA) process, and successfully put Kano Jigoro and Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu through GA.  Aside from needing more citations (at least one per paragraph is what is usually preferred by GA reviewers), I think the taekwondo article's biggest weaknesses is having too much detail on secondary topics.  For example, all the extremely detailed stuff about ranking and titles in the Kukkiwon should be moved to the Kukkiwon article; it's not really relevant to taekwondo as a general subject.  The second biggest problem is that too many topics are discussed in list form (or table form) when they could be written about in paragraph form.  GA reviewers generally treat lists as inherently unencyclopedic, and to be avoided if at all possible.  There are other problems, and I'd be happy to provide further input at the taekwondo talk page, but if the extraneous TKD organization-specific stuff could be whittled away, and all of the material could be sourced, the article would be very close to GA, in my opinion. Good luck, and let me know if I can help further, Bradford44 12:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest lists have already been removed; but I agree about the material that is specific to organizations. They should be mentioned and are vital, but they don't need to be described in quite so much detail.  Finding good sources is the real challenge, when it comes to this topic, but I'm working on it. Omnedon 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Omnedon. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Illinois articles
I have noticed lately that you have been doing some work on Illinois related articles. I am just wondering if you live in those areas by chance? I am part of the Illinois project, and am always looking for people who live down in the southern counties of the state. Let me know if you would be able to do some works and/or pictures of the smaller and large communities down there. Thanks!--Kranar drogin 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am often in the east-central Illinois area, and had in fact planned to begin adding photographs of the local towns and other points of interest; I've already begun adding some more detail to town articles, as you've noticed. If I can gather any specific information that you're looking for, I'd be glad to help out.  Omnedon 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you are going to start doing images, I would suggest making a Commons account and putting your pictures there. The major things we are looking for are an image of ever single village, city, or unincorporated area. Also, if we can get NRHPs, that would be great since we are going to start working on them soon. If you do go picture taking, I would look and see what settlements we have pictures of first so you can kinda skip those if you want. Usually I will take pictures of like post offices, fire departments, historic places if they have any, and if it is unincoporated you might want to just take a picture of the settlement or something major in the settlement (ie, grain elevators or a sign). See Ogle County, Illinois which will give you an idea of what I have been doing for WP:IL.--Kranar drogin 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already have a Commons account, and have some experience with this sort of photography. I've now added several for Vermilion County and expect to add quite a few more.  Omnedon 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is great news. If you would also be so kind, when you add the images to the Wikipedia, could you tag them with the category Category:Images of Vermilion County, Illinois unless you have a city or village that has a lot of pics, then of course make its own category. Could you also add the Illinois tag to the image page, see some of the others you have uploaded already. Thanks a lot, hope you don't mind me watching and tagging. Thanks for all the hard work.--Kranar drogin 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Taekyeon
Hi Omnedon, I was hoping for your help with this. It looks like User:Amphitere just unilaterally moved Taekyon to Taekyeon. Rather than revert the change, I'd like to do a formal move request at WP:RM, and rather than move the page back, I think the page should be moved to whatever the proper Revised Romanization spelling is. I was hoping you could take a look at the article, double check the romanizations in the "koreanname" infobox, and (because there is listed both a "popular spelling" and a "dictionary spelling") you could pick which one the article should be located at and give me a supporting reason that I can use when I list the article for a move. Thanks, Bradford44 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I just noticed that Amphitere cut and pasted the content to the new location, rather than doing a proper move. So it will need to be moved back before it is moved to its final location, so as to preserve the original article's edit history. Bradford44 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, and had the same thought -- that if it is to be moved, then it should be moved based on the RR spelling. I'll check it out and get back to you. Omnedon 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not having a lot of luck in finding a definitive statement about the "official" spelling in Hangeul. My guess would be that "태껸" is more correct, so that "Taekkyeon" would be the Revised Romanization version. Omnedon 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds great, I've already reverted the improper cut and paste by amphitere, I'm going to list the article at WP:RM now. Thanks for your help, feel free to chime in once I've started it. Bradford44 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the rules are clear on this. It shouldn't require debate to move it to its rr spelling.  I'm just going to move it and see what happens.Bradford44 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Warren County timeline
Thought you might like to know there's now a timeline of Warren County, Indiana history. Some of the main dates (mostly copied from the town articles) are in there, but it'll need much more. :) Huwmanbeing 00:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vermilion County
Thanks for adding those pictures for the two villages in Vermilion County! I watch pretty much all villages and cities of Illinois (well, I TRY too), and saw your additions. I have also gone over to the Commons and put them in their respective commons categories over there along with their categories here. Hope you didn't mind, but keeps things better organized for the Illinois Project. Thanks for the pics!--Kranar drogin 04:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report
IvoShandor 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All those townships
Great job on creating all the Indiana county templates and your continuing work on creating all township articles! I did a similar thing for Ohio at the beginning of this year, and I know it takes a ton of work to do. Nyttend 13:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yes, it's a lot of work, all right; but I find it very satisfying. Omnedon 22:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On that subject, it might be a good idea to find just some kind of small fact and include it in each page, just to give readers something to look at while the article is still a stub. Still, great work! It must take a lot of dedication to do these. Great job! Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. I've done that on a few of the articles, but for now have decided to press on with the initial creation, then do another run through to add some of the less-accessible information.  In the meantime, perhaps people who have some direct knowledge of the areas will expand the articles a bit; that has already happened in one county.  Thank you! Omnedon 23:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, a good idea when leaving replies to comments placed on your talk page is to leave them on that user's talk page, rather than your own. That way, the "You have new messages" box will appear at the top of the page so people will be able to reply to your comment that way. Sound a little bit confusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellito (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are pros and cons either way; but I find it easier if conversations take place on a single page. Naturally, if I initiate a discussion, then of course that goes on someone else's page. Omnedon 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I seen that you are creating all the townships for Indiana. Awesome work! I know how daunting of a task it is, due to the fact that I did about 90% of Illinois. One thing you may want to consider, is that while you are finishing off what you have begun, is switching to the template geobox township similar to Marion Township, Ogle County, Illinois. I am slowly changing over Illinois, but it is a slow process now that they are done and there is so much else to do. I might ask a bot guy to do it for me.--Kranar drogin 02:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Area codes
One thing I noticed on a few of your articles, is that you may have forgotten to link the area codes. I have done a few for you, but you may want to link those from now on.--Kranar drogin 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Geobox
Just want to thank you for adding in all those Geoboxes. Right now our project is second with using them of all the projects (this is just the Geobox 2 though). I am jumping around counties up here in the north adding them in, should be finishing up Ogle, Stephenson is done, and then move to Winnebago and others. Thanks for your assistance. Oh, and for townships, I just have been taking pics of the buildings, but really you could add any pic in for their geobox if you wish (that is if you have changed them already from infobox). I have put a request in for a newer township geobox, so see what happens.--Kranar drogin 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Vermilion Historic Places
I am working on making a feature list out of List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois, but I need some help. I know you have been working a lot over in Vermilion County, Illinois, and was wondering if you could work on creating articles for the structures in your neck of the woods (any of the surrounding counties if you want also). We also need pictures of the buildings for the articles. Here is what we need from Vermilion County so far. If interested, let me know and I will get you a website links for the article information. --Kranar drogin 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I should be able to get photos of those places pretty easily. I'll add them to my list. Omnedon 12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great to hear! Thanks for your assistance. Any of the historic places by you that you can get would be great, even if it is just one! I set this category up for you here on Commons. This link will also assist you on the pictures and the articles themselves if you feel like writing them up. Once you click on the report, there is a detailed "View Background Documentation" maybe that will help with the article.--Kranar drogin 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested
Hey...seeing that you're from Indiana, and you're on Wikipedia, you might be interested in the Indiana-Illinois-Kentucky Tri-State Wiki.

Just a thought.

Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinton, Illinois
Hello, thanks for adding a picture. However, do u think u could add a picture that shows what the town actually looks like? Pictures of the high street or something.Zigzig20s 09:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Beggers can't be choosers. I like this picture of the watertower, especially if it is a small town and a lot of the time "downtown" shots won't turn out, and we have to go for something like this with the village name on it or the post office. Great work on adding so many pictures for small towns over in eastern Illinois Omnedon, they are turning out terrific.--Kranar drogin 11:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kranar, thanks for the compliment; it's been a fun project, and there's plenty more to do. However, Zigzig, I will try to get another shot of Martinton; the goal is to get at least a couple of photos per town.  In this case I was just passing by and saw the water tower, which is of an unusual design. Omnedon 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Iowa townships
So you're beginning on a project to create all the Iowa township articles? Seems quite ambitious...hope you can get it done :-) Nyttend 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought I'd start with one county and get it all filled out, and then make sure that interested parties (if there are any) are happy with the content and presentation before moving on. I'm trying to include as much relevant information on the first run as possible.  Any opinions? Omnedon 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one thing: I see that you've been creating articles such as City of Belle Plaine, Benton County, Iowa, which the article says is coëxtensive with the city. I suspect that the source from which you wrote the article is simply another way of listing cities in a bureaucratic manner when the city is independent of townships.  Since the townships are coëxtensive with the townships and have the same names and statistics, I believe that there shouldn't be separate articles.  I'm loath to merge this without your opinion, since you created it; and since you have some official source, the articles definitely shouldn't be merged.  What do you think of this idea, that they should be merged to some extent?  Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The USGS lists "Belle Plaine" as a "populated place" and "City of Belle Plaine" as "civil", with different GNIS IDs; so for technical accuracy I listed the civil entity with the townships. However, it may make sense to merge the two articles since there is no difference in the area and population, and to make a note about this technical distinction in the merged article.  Let me think about this a bit and do some further checking on what would make most sense locally. Omnedon (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at Pennsylvania you'll find that there are many townships that are also CDPs. I haven't bothered to check, but I would guess that there are two listings for them, say, as "populated place" and "civil" or something like that, but these townships have just one article, not two.  Some of the villages of Vermont, as well, are CDPs, but there aren't split articles.  I'd say that there's precedent in both states for the Iowa city/township article merger.  Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa
List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of cemeteries in Adams County, Iowa during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whitstable 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan
That really was a singularly unhelpful response on the Moo Duk Kwan issue, wasn't it? :) "Please help us resolve a conflict."  "Just delete the article." Omnedon 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly impressed, I kept the response short as the only method of being polite... --Nate1481(t/c) 09:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Iowa
Hey, I'm doing new pages patrol, and I'm impressed by all the articles you're adding, so I just wanted to drop you a line and say thanks for all your contributions! — Yavoh 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to post this.  Omnedon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Co-extensive townships
In general, I agree with the person above that it is great when people create articles for communities that were for whatever reason overlooked by User:Rambot and crew. However, with some of the 'city of ___' township ones (such as City of Belle Plaine, Benton County, Iowa and City of Shellsburg, Benton County, Iowa), where it says the township is 'coextensive' with pre-existing city article, wouldn't it be better to make them redirects to the existent articles, instead of creating a need to maintain basically the exact same information in two separate places? Changing the cities' intros to something like "Shellsburg is a city and coexistent township in Benton County, Iowa, United States.", for example, would seemingly cover the only info that doesn't overlap both articles--if the entities were established on different dates (the only other difference I can imagine), that could easily be handled in the intro of the combined article. Coexistent city-county articles, such as featured article San Francisco, California, are typically consolidated in this manner. I was initially inclined to simply redirect them myself, but you've obviously put a lot of effort into this project, so I thot it would be better to start with this suggestion, with my rationale. (I also have know idea if there's only these two with this circumstance, or if there's more.) On a related topic, at least with those two that I checked, the City-Data.com links don't find entries. Ravenna1961 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I already expressed, I have no objection to merging the articles since the information is duplicated; after having created them, I was coming to the same conclusion myself anyway. I've decided to avoid the use of the word "coextensive", though.  Omnedon (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By Iowa law, the city and the township appear to be separate: check here, searching in Title IX Local Government for §359.5 under the Townships subtitle. Since these townships are coëxtensive, there's no real need to have a separate article.  However, because the city and the township appear to be a little distinct, I don't think we should say "a city and coexistent township" — it would be better to have a separate sentence in the city intro saying "The 'City of ____' Township is coextensive with the city" and having a reference to that effect.  Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm well aware that the "City of ___" townships are townships, as you can see from my comment right up above. I'm not clear what you mean: for example, on Appanoose County, you can see that I wrote "The City of Centerville Township is separate from Centerville but shares the same borders."  Or do you mean how I removed them from the templates?  Either way, I don't see why we need to link to them: the point of listing them with links is to allow someone to read the article, but in the townships section of the county page, the reader can easily see the city link above.  Moreover, with the template, it doesn't help at all: a nav template is intended to enable the reader to go from one article to another, and there's no real reason to have multiple links to the same article — especially the redirects, which don't even end up at the same article as the reader might expect.  Have I replied to what you left on my talk page, or did you mean something otherwise?  Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing, there is no need to separate what your refer to as "rural townships". The townships that contain nothing but a city are still townships and should be included in the number of townships in the county; I see no reason to exclude them.  As to redirects -- if they would be confusing, then we should go back to having an article for the township separate from the city (since they are separate entities).  Omnedon (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well, whatever, it's not a big deal. However, about the redirects: I'm still not quite sure what you mean.  Do you think that there should be separate links on the county articles and templates?  If not, I'm sorry for wasting your time.  If so, please understand that this would be going against what other states do.  From this map, you can see, for example, that Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has lots of townships (thirteen by my count) that are also census-designated places, but are only listed once on the county page and once on the county template.  Likewise, some villages in Vermont (see here) are also CDPs, but only listed once.  Of course, a CDP and a city are two different things, but the principle still stands that we don't link to redirects in situations like this.  Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to remind you of the highly irregular nature of linking to cities on the township sections of Iowa county templates. I've gone through (for an unrelated matter) all county templates nationwide, and the only templates with double links are three in New York:,  , and. This is because there are five entities in these three counties — Green Island, East Rochester, Scarsdale, Harrison, and Mount Kisco — that are both towns and villages, and therefore are listed twice. Effectively, this is the same idea as a unified city-county on a smaller scale; you can see that Denver is linked twice on, and San Francisco is linked twice on. Because the city and the township are not identical bodies, the same article cannot be listed twice unless you wish to be at variance with the nationwide consensus. Stop adding the city links in the township sections. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw this discussion linked from WP:3O. This discussion should probably be moved to somewhere else like a WikiProject talk page so that User:Omnedon doesn't keep getting new messages. I guess there are two schools of thought about what these county templates are for. Is it a complete list of all the townships and "places" within the county? Or is it a list of all the unique articles in existence for places/areas located in the county? Do you normally include places for which no article currently exists or where the article currently redirects to a bigger containing place? Are the cities and townships in question considered to be consolidated governments? What do other states do for consolidated places? --Polaron | Talk 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again I would remind you that the townships and cities in Iowa are separate entities, and as such need to have entries in the applicable lists. Stop removing them; this causes the lists to be incomplete and therefore inaccurate.  Omnedon (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have articles on them? The very point of a navigational template is to enable the reader to go from article to article; it's like a See also section.  People can't go to articles on the townships (properly), and therefore the links shouldn't be there.  I'm curious: if you believe this, what would you have to say to the Pennsylvania people, who do not list a double entity twice?  Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the practice of having multiple links in a single article to a single other article, using different link text for each link, is common throughout United States geographical articles of various types -- in the demographics section. There, the various links to the races as defined in the US census (Asian, Native American, et cetera) all link to the same page:  Race and ethnicity in the United States Census (although the link is sometimes made to a redirect page, such as Race (United States Census) or Asian (U.S. Census)).  It was apparently determined that there was no need for separate articles for each of the various racial defintions used in the census.  So, there is a broad precedent for you.  In this Iowa county template situation, the context for one link is for a city or town, and the context for the other is for a township.  Both entities do exist; presently they share a single article, and both the township and the city, and their relationship, are being described in that article.  Omnedon (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's not a navigational template. Manual of Style (links): "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles."  I'm assuming that the wording in the demographics section has been considered an exception, for surely they wouldn't have bots go around and change tens of thousands of articles to something that didn't fit policy.  However, the entire point of a navigational template is to let people navigate — not to explain what something is like, such as what "Pacific Islander" in the demographics means.  Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Navigation is indeed the point of the template, but not at the expense of presenting incomplete or misleading information. Put simply, if the box includes a section that suggests it's a list of the townships of a county, then it should list the townships of the county.  I think it's unrealistic to assume that a casual user, who might want to navigate using that list, will automatically understand that the list is deliberately incomplete because certain township and municipality borders happen to be coextensive.
 * As regards the links, I doubt linking twice (in two different contexts) to the same article would impede a user's understanding of the topic; actually I think quite the reverse is the case, as I mentioned. Perhaps the best solution would be to go ahead and make the articles for these townships – they are, after all, fully legitimate civil divisions in their own rights, and the relationship between it and the municipality can be noted in the articles.  Huwmanbeing &#9733; 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But, as you mentioned above, there are other navigational templates that have separate links to the same article such as Colorado and Westchester County, New York. Should those duplicate links be removed? --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, it seems that the most consistent solution is to go ahead and have articles for all of the townships, including the relatively few that share their borders with cities. This does have the advantage of providing, in the infobox, the map that shows the township borders (which are not included on the locator maps provided for settlements). The relationship between city and township will be described in each such article. Omnedon (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Township FIPS, demographics
On something somewhat related: where do you find the FIPS codes for the townships, and where can you find the Census demographics for them? I've looked at the Factfinder page, and I can't find them there; and I don't know where else to get them. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. I saw this page is listed on 3O, so here's my take. Having the links there twice is excessive. For the Buena Vista County template, for example, Sioux Rapids and Storm Lake should only be linked as cities. You could attempt to generate township articles that are separate from the city articles, but I'm not sure that there would be all that much to write. Still, I think that cities trump townships, so the articles should be listed there. Does this help? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More with the townships
Just wanting to make sure, but do you believe that these Iowa townships fit the definition of a civil township? If so, it would likely be better to have hem link there, rather than the more general township (United States). Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Township maps
I don't care that you create your own, but I know that we were trying to get them all the same color sceme like in Marion Township, Ogle County, Illinois. Dan I think the artist was who was doing them. That is the only suggestion I have for the ones you created, so they match.--Kranar drogin (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with the Marion Township article, in my opinion, is that the infobox is much longer than is really necessary due to the extra maps. I don't really see the need for a county map, an Illinois pushpin map, and a US map in a township article. Omnedon (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the suggestion of using the same color scheme as the state maps has merit. The new township maps now use that scheme. Omnedon (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Map highlighting Artesia Township, Iroquois County, Illinois.svg
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)