User talk:VerruckteDan/Archive6

Louisiana
Please refer to state listings of jurisditons instead of US census, because the census is OLD, INACCURATE, NOT LEGALLY BINDING!!! EVERY state has listings but you refuse to find them; instead you take the compiled junk that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT uses to determine how many people are somewhere!!!!11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)JME1

Cornwall Bridge, Montreal
You recently added a structure called Cornwall Bridge, located in Montreal, Canada, in the list of longest cantilever bridges in the world. I live in Montreal and I've never heard of a bridge by that name. Can you tell me where that bridge is located, so that I might take a picture of it? Would that be over Lachine Canal? --Blanchardb 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the information on the bridge from here, but I'm not sure what bridge it is actually referring to. It's possible that the bridge no longer exists, as some of the other bridges listed from my source have been destroyed/demolished.  VerruckteDan 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WilmingtonDEseal.png
Thanks for uploading Image:WilmingtonDEseal.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CPRA Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CPRA 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 the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 01:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Downingtown Area School District Seal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Downingtown Area School District Seal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 08:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bucks County, PA Seal.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bucks County, PA Seal.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Esrever 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

US County Navigation Box
In Vermont, the seat of government is the "shire town" (for example, see here) instead of being the "county seat". Since the US county navigation box has a variable for Louisiana parish seats, could you add a Vermont variable for shire towns? Nyttend 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The template is now protected and can only be edited by administrators. I have made the necessary edit request, so hopefully it will soon be updated with the proper code.  VerruckteDan 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User page
Hi Dan, I just reverted some vandalism to your user page, thought you'd want to know, take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. VerruckteDan 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Map
I was wondering Dan, if you could convert this map Image:US-IL-Chicagoland-Barrington.png over to the standard colors we are using for Illinois. Except make it blank without showing Barrington there, and allow for it to be used with the Geobox template with GPS coordinates. It is something that a Chicago Project member brought up to me, so I would like to see how it looks. Thanks for any assistance in this.--Kranar drogin 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if you have been able to look into this? Sorry to bring it up again if you don't want to do it.--Kranar drogin (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it had totally slipped my mind. Let me take a look at it in the next day or two and get back to you.  VerruckteDan (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let me know whenever you have something done. Hope it isn't going to be too hard.--Kranar drogin (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Robbinsville CDP, New Jersey
Agreed that it's not a CDP; the question is what to name the article. I've pasted in an earlier conversation on the subject at Talk:Robbinsville CDP, New Jersey and i invite your comments on the issue there. Alansohn 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Metairie, Louisiana
Who are you to decide that Mark A. Singer's accomplishments are unworthy of inclusion in the notable Metairians section? He is the Bobby Fischer of online gaming, and that makes you a Communist bureaucrat censoring his achievements because they don't fit into your definition of excellence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.228.247 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wisconsin county template
Do you plan to place the template on the relevant articles? Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Hi Dan, thanks for your support at Presque Isle. I keep wondering if you would ever want to be an admin? You do lots of fairly thankless tasks well around here and have always been very helpful and pleasant with me, so I assume you would make a good admin. I have never nominated anyone, so I might ask one of those who do lots of noms to handle it, but if you ever ran, you would have my support and co-nom, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, its a really great article. As always, you and Dincher do a great job adding well written and researched content to the articles you work on.  As for the admin, its something I've thought about from time to time and in general I'd be interested in pursuing it.  However, I'm not sure sure this is the right time.  I've cut back on my Wikipedia time of late due to my job and such, but things should lighten up after the new year, so I'll give it some more thought at that time.  I thank you for the vote of confidence in my contributions and am humbled because as I said, I consider you one of the best editors I've had the pleasure of working with.  Let me conclude by saying if you ever decide that admin is something you're interested in, I'd gladly support you as a co-nominator.  Thanks.  VerruckteDan (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words about both Presque Isle and myself. Consider my question on adminship a standing offer - I will also keep your generous offer in mind. I am not sure if I want to be an admin or not, I turned down an offer a long time ago, and guess I am still not sure. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, User:Snowolf recently asked me to be an admin so the third time's the charm and I am going to say yes. I have told him that you (and Dincher) want to be co-nominators, so I will let you know when the RfA page is up. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

List of cities, towns, and villages in Louisiana
Please explain to me why you simply must insist upon the horrendously long scrolling list style that you keep reverting the article back to instead of the cloumn style that I've put. I think I've already stated to you that the column style (my opinion only) is a whole lot more user friendly, easier to get around on, and flows better. I notice that you said something about auto alphabetizing names. There aren't any more names to add that I'm aware of, and the list was already alphabetized (albeit manually). Is there no way that we can strike a happy medium here and incorporate the colum style and also have it alphabetize automatically the way you want? Sf46 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I primarily use Firefox and did not realize that my method does not appear properly in Internet Explorer, which is too bad, as its easier coding to maintain. Oh well, I will revert the edit.  VerruckteDan (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch's RfA
Hi,

Ruhrfisch told me that you wanted to co-nom. I've prepared the page here it is. Happy editing,  Snowolf How can I help? 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, I know you have been busy IRL lately, so I will wait unti December 7 to accept the nomination (so you have three days notice if you want to conominate and are able to). If this is a problem, please let me know, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to go transclude the RfA page now, sorry this co-nom didn't work out but thanks for the offer, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)icing my support.


 * I really need to check my talk page more, sorry I missed the nomination phase, but I will be voicing my support. Good luck.  VerruckteDan (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and no worries about the nomination. Things seem to be going well so far. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Moshannon State Park
Thanks for pointing that out. Could you fix it? I cannot access GNIS from work. That's why I changed it. But I agree that the elevation references should be uniform. Feel free to change anything else too. I am working on getting it to GA and welcome the help. Taking a Black Mo break for now. Thanks for the compliment. Dincher (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the GNIS conversation to your geobox user page. Dincher (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA
Thanks again for all you do - always a pleasure working with you, keep up the good work Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Dear VerruckteDan, I wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Dincher (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Georgia county template navigation boxes
Hello, I see you have reverted all of the edits to the Georgia county nav boxes. In principle you are correct, bodies of water (ie rivers, creeks and lakes) are outside the scope of municipalities and communities. But as each county's nav box stands right now (without my additions) they (the nav boxes) are really not serving much of a purpose. All they are doing is listing a handful of communities that are already listed and discussed in the main body of each county's article. Take Fulton County Georgia for example, Template:Fulton County, Georgia. All of the "cities" in the template are listed in the article's main body, and more "Communities" are listed in the article. So what is the template doing to improve the article? In my opinion, the nav boxes could be used to improve these article, giving additional information such as rivers, lakes, creeks, state parks and forests, colleges and universities and other similar items. The way they stand now, they are just taking up space, repeating what has already been written.

Another note, it has been mentioned to me that in the state of Georgia, now all "towns" and "cities" are, by Georgia law, designated cities. Another editor who lives in Georgia User:JohnnyReb1977 told me this. (I'm sure he will be able to provide the actual source for this claim as he has been a wikipedia editor for a fair amount of time and cites his work). So, this means that techically, we must combine what is currently several categories into one. Therefore the current templates are even less useful (without adding additional info).

I hope all this has been taken without any anger. Have a Merry Christmas. Rocketmaniac (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings at all, discussing issues such as this is what all Wikipedia is about. I understand your thoughts above, but I still feel that the limiting the template to municipalities and communities is the best way.  Here's why, first you mention that the template repeats the cities, towns, etc that are already listed on a county's wiki article.  This is true, but the template is also on the article for each of those cities, towns, etc., where they are not already listed.  The purpose of these templates are as navigation templates between the municipalities of a given county, so while not necessarily "improving" the county article, they serve a very useful purpose on the municipality articles.


 * Second, the problem with adding other items such as rivers, lakes, etc is where do you draw the limit? By not having a tight definition for the template's purpose, the templates will become increasing bloated as future editors decide that another classification of items should be listed.  A template that tries to do everything ultimately does nothing as it becomes so large it is no longer easy to navigate.  Additionally, I think there is a benefit to having some relationship between the different "groups" of items in the template.  For example, cities, towns, CDPs are all related to each other.  However, lakes and rivers are entirely different, state parks and forests are again entirely different and so on.  I'd suggest that its more appropriate to have a template for "Rivers of Georgia" or something along those lines (having one for each county is probably excessive, as most counties probably do not have large numbers of notable rivers and the scale of rivers is more appropriate to a statewide template.


 * If indeed Georgia law defines all cities and towns as cities, the templates will need to be updated accordingly, but I don't think that effects their usefulness for the reasons I've already stated.


 * I look forward to continuing this discussion. I'll be checking Wikipedia less frequently due to the holidays and I'm sure the same may apply to you, so no rush in things.  Merry Christmas.  VerruckteDan (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm writing this as I recover from eating way too much holiday food. There should be a law against having so much great food at the same time!


 * If the purpose of these templates is only to list other communities in that county, why not just use the normal "See also" section. With only a handful of places listed, it would be more efficient to add them to the "See also" section. This will be even more true once we get an actual reference for the "all cities and towns are now defined as cities" law. With only one real type of community, these templates will become nothing more that glorified "See also" lists. Rocketmaniac (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The advantage of navigational templates over a See also section listing the same material is the centralization of editing. The template allows an edit to be made once and be reflected on all pages using the template.  In the case of smaller counties, that will result in small templates without many links, but that doesn't mean that its any less useful as a navigational tool between the municipalities of that county.  One of the important things to remember about navigational templates is that they are intended to help users navigate by linking together related articles.  The navigational template page offers the advice that templates should avoid being too big.  It goes on to say "smaller templates retain a more tightly focused relationship between the articles and allow the reader to navigate to other related content quickly."  This is the point that I'm trying to make.  As I suggested below in my response to Reb, I think its more appropriate to have a separate templates for some of these other topics.  For schools it could be something like "Template:Schools of Fulton County, Georgia" rivers could be done around the basis of a river system such as "Template:Savannah River" which could include tributaries, reservoirs, etc.  In the case of state parks, a template already exists Template:Protected Areas of Georgia (U.S. state.).  I think the current recommendations of keeping nav templates focused, is a good thing to follow and has resulted in templates that are user friendly whether it be these county templates are any of the thousands of other nav templates out there.  VerruckteDan (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey VerruckteDan. Rocketmaniac recently let me know about the conversation over here. I think I agree with you about rivers and lakes now that I've been made aware of the fact that those bodies of water aren't under the purview of the municipalities and communities. What do you think about distinguishing between CDPs, metropolitan, micropolitan and unincorporated cities though? I checked the Georgia article (where I first got the information about everything being designated a city in the State of Georgia) and couldn't find a cite for it. So, I searched the New Georgia Encylcopedia. According to the article on Georgia's City Governments:



"In many states there are significant legal differences among the designations city, town, village, and hamlet. Georgia law, however, makes no distinction among cities, towns, and municipalities. Accordingly, the only legal difference between the city of Claxton and the town of Tyrone is that Claxton was incorporated as a city and Tyrone was incorporated as a town." http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-586


 * Also, the article there on Municipal Services states that:



"Georgia law declares that the terms city, town, municipality, and village are identical in meaning. Municipalities anywhere are formed when residents of an area ask the legislature to grant a charter. A 1963 law provided three requirements for charter eligibility: there must be at least 200 people living in the area, the proposed municipality must be more than three miles from another one, and 60 percent of the area must be developed and divided into tracts." http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2865


 * Getting away from that for a while, what about adding public and private school listings to the template - those schools that are in each county I mean? Reb (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the information you provided, it certainly seems that Georgia law makes no distinction between cities, towns, etc. However, the individual articles for municipalities include text that says "Atlanta is a city...." or "Corinth is a town..."  This is not just something that effects the navigation templates, but the text in a large number of articles.  Right now, the Georgia county templates separate cities and towns based on the type of municipality stated in the intro to the municipalities article.  I would imagine that these distinctions between cities, towns, etc is based on Census information, though I am not certain.  Because changing all of this is a rather large and significant change, I feel that it would have to be proposed and discussed at WikiProject Georgia and possibly WikiProject US States before any action is taken.


 * As for other categories, CDPs and unincorporated communities should already be broken out into their own sections on the templates if they are present in a given county, so I think that issue does not need to be discussed. Listing the schools starts treading into the same concerns I had about rivers and lakes.  It shifts the focus of the template from the tightly defined municipalities and communities to something larger and then where is the line drawn as to what should be in the template and what should not.  I think a better solution would be a separate navigation template for the schools of a county, for example "Template:Schools of Fulton County, Georgia".  A navigation box should serve to link related articles and there's a clear relation between municipalities of a county and a connection between schools within a county, but far less a connection between municipalities and schools.  VerruckteDan (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the cities issue I think you're most likely right about them being based on census information. I'd like to see the articles changed to reflect that each city is in fact a city, but that is something we need to discuss with the the Georgia WikiProject, as you said - it'd be a lot of work. I'd go to the US states project only if absolutely necessary, though (personal opinion). Also, I'm starting to lean more to your way of thinking regarding rivers, but not with schools. Take, for instance, the Evans County School District. It focuses on Evans County and its schools are located in Claxton, Georgia, Evans County's seat. The private school is in Bellville, Georgia. For me, I don't see a problem putting the schools in a county box because, unlike rivers, they don't leave the borders of the county. Make sense? Reb (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the issue of Georgia "towns" being cities is about editing all the current town articles. It will be a big job, but since that's that way the state has made it's law, it's what needs to be done on Wikipedia articles. I have no problem asking for inputs from other editors on the Georgia Wikiproject level, but in the end I think they need to be changed. I think it's our (all wikipedia editors) responsibility write/edit articles to reflect actual facts/laws. Rocketmaniac (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Undoing indent to offer my opinions on several subjects:
 * Types of communities: Please note that the Census lists some of them as towns and some of them as cities (check http://factfinder.census.gov to prove this), so these must not be changed as long as state law says that some places can be called towns and others cities. If state law has been changed so that all incorporated communities are cities (like, say, in Kansas), we'll need bigtime work in the process of correcting everything: each "town" throughout the state will need a citation from state law saying that all incorporated communities are cities, despite the Census reference.  Find a citation in Georgia law (it should be online and searchable), notify the Georgia Wikiproject, and we can get going on it.  If you can't find a citation, please don't change anything.  It seems that New Mexico's communities, for example, are the same (despite being named cities, towns, and villages), but they're distinguished by the Census.  Frankly speaking, as municipalities are creatures of the government, official government sources (Census and state government) are the most reliable sources on this question: other sources, such as the Georgia Encyclopedia, can be useful and give insight, but they shouldn't be preferred above official ones.
 * Content of template: Please note that all the Georgia county navboxes are based on, and therefore each county template is intended to list the municipalities and communities in the county.  Frankly, a river is neither a municipality nor a community.  A school is neither a municipality nor a community.  A school district is neither a municipality nor a community.  You may be able to find one or two county templates nationwide that list such things, but it's against nationwide consensus to do that.  Please don't list such things on the template, as they're not what the template is made to list.  Nothing is wrong with a template for the county's schools or other things, or topics in general, as VDan suggests; you can find such a template, for example, in  .  It's best to keep them separate in a way such as this.
 * Lastly, about the metropolitan and micropolitan areas: the Census Bureau defines such areas by counties (thus making the deserts of northern Coconino County, Arizona a part of the Flagstaff metropolitan area, despite being likely 150 miles away from the city), and therefore the entire county is in such an area or isn't. If you want to list this (which wouldn't be a bad idea), it would likely be best to propose it at the USCounty navbox talk page as an extra line of code to be added at the top.

By the way, sorry for not adding this comment some time ago; I typed my reply as soon as I finished typing my reply down below, hours ago, but I had a computer malfunction. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CDPs
Hi! Just wanted to comment on the CDPs being listed in the county nav boxes. I certainly have no objection against including census-designated places -- they're important to show, as are all the other populated places in the county. However, given that CDPs are "settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located," I'm not sure why they need to be separated out from other unincorporated communities. (After all, they also are populated places, identifiable by name, and not legally incorporated.) Also, in the case of Bartholomew County for instance, there's an entire section in the nav box dedicated to listing only a single item; including it with the other unincorporated places seems a reasonable simplification that doesn't sacrifice accuracy. Huwmanbeing &#9733; 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the CDPs should be listed as a separate grouping because even though they are legally no different from other unincorporated areas in a state, they have been separated historically on Wikipedia with their own categories such as Category:Census-designated places in Indiana or Category:Census-designated places in Pennsylvania and the articles are usually much more developed with a structure that matches the structure of incorporated municipality articles. Additionally, many county articles also have a separate listing of the CDPs from other unincorporated communities.  I don't think that only having one CDP listed in Bartholomew County is an issue, if there was only one city in a given county it would still be listed separate.  Additionally, the practice of listing CDPs and unincorporated places as separate items is done uniformly in county nav boxes across all 50 states, so continuing to do so will present a consistent navigation tool to all users.  VerruckteDan (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * CDPs are obviously unincorporated, but by virtue of being CDPs, they're different from other unincorporated communities. As long as we make any difference between them and other unincorporated communities, we should list them separately, whether on the templates or in the county articles.  I agree with VerruckteDan's ideas.  My only differences are two:


 * Some states, such as Alaska and Maine, have no county navboxes at all: see my county navbox link directory.
 * Some states are different; most counties in Pennsylvania list them differently, some Texas counties are confused, and there are likely some others that I'm not thinking of at the moment. However, they are aberrations: the large majority of county navboxes nationwide list CDPs and other place separately.  Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice list of state templates Nyttend! There are quite a few states that don't use them. I see the advantage of using them. Yes, while reading about one town (or Georgia city) you can find a list of the other cities in that county. But a state like Georgia that has so many counties, (159, 2nd only to Texas) there are only a handful of communities in each county. Even if we split up the communities into cities, CDPs etc, it is not going to really "add" info. (just make each category have less entries). So, adding the other cities to the "See also" section would not be that much work. With all of this in mind, how useful are Georgia's county templates? Rocketmaniac (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, thanks for dropping by with your information. I tend to agree with Rocketmaniac in that the templates don't seem very useful as they are now when all the information we have can easily go into a See also section of the article. At the same time, I don't want to get rid of the templates - I just wish there was some way to fill them out that makes sense and could be agreed upon. Not sure what to add to that at the moment but I will definitely be thinking about it. Reb (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're as useful as you make them. Every county template is featured on at least three pages: the county page, the county seat page, and one other page.  It's useful as a navigational template, so that we need only to put the same thing on each page, and if another article is created in the county, another place is simply added to the template.  I'm sorry that you disagree with their usefulness, but county templates are used (as you can see) in many states.  Please don't waste your efforts with a See also section: a county template is inherently more useful for the reasons that I noted above.  And by the way: I myself have been creating them: I added them to perhaps 155 Georgia counties, and I've done many other states also.  You ask how to fill them out: create articles on the unincorporated communities near you. It's not hard :-)  Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, I'm sorry if you feel that I have slighted the template in any way. It wasn't my intention at all do so, only to offer what I feel is constructive criticism by seeing what I feel to be a problem, discussing it and trying to offer ideas to make it better. You've done great work in creating the templates as they are. It's obvious you've put a lot of well thought-out effort into each and every template you've worked on. Thank you for doing all that work. Reb (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template syntax
I left the following comment on Zzyzx11's talk page:"Could you edit the code for Template:US county navigation box somewhat? Some New England and New York templates (you can see an example on the main template's talk page) display oddly because of the article's title — for example, the shire town of Rutland County, Vermont is entitled Rutland (city), Vermont. Could you make it so that it would display only 'Rutland' instead of 'Rutland (city)'?  Furthermore, there's the occasional county seat that isn't the only place of its name in the state: as the article is named 'CITYNAME, COUNTYNAME County, STATENAME', the template title has 'CITYNAME, COUNTYNAME County' listed for the county seat.  I'd do it myself, but I don't know much about writing template syntax."To this, s/he replied:"I think you better ask User:VerruckteDan who wrote most of the template, and knows more about it than I do. If I try to do what you ask, I either might break the template or have to rewrite it. Sorry for any inconvenience. Cheers."

Would you be able to write the change I've requested? I was loth to ask you, simply because you're not an administrator. If you want, I can post the finished text for you. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response to this topic and my lack of further comments on the above discussions, I have been on the road doing some holiday travel. The problem you pointed out is something i am aware of, but am not 100% sure how to correct.  Honestly, I have been procrastinating on finding the solution after the template became protected.  But now that the template has greatly expanded in use, it certainly is time to find a solution.  I will see what I can come up with in the next week or so and keep you updated.  If need be, I'm sure we can find a third party that can assist.  VerruckteDan (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Monroe County pa Seal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Monroe County pa Seal.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Niagara Falls Bridge Commission Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Niagara Falls Bridge Commission Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgia county templates
Just curious about the Georgia county template color changes: the color that you changed it away from (#ccf), not the color you changed it to (#cddeff) is the same color as the state template. Most county templates are the color of the state templates; if the other 152 templates were all cddeff, would it perhaps be better to change all 158 to ccf? Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, after I changed the few county templates that were different colors from the majority, I realized that the state template was #ccf. I wasn't sure whether the county templates should be changed to #ccf or if Georgia should be changed to #cddeff.  I think #cddeff is a nicer color, but thats not a good reason to change the state template.  It doesn't look like there was ever any discussion about a specific color for the Georgia template, so it just uses the fairly basic #ccf.  Ultimately, while I prefer #cddeff, I'm not attached to either color.  If there is a color closely associated with Georgia, that'd be the ideal situation (as long as it doesn't reduce the readability of the template).  Are you aware of such a color?  Do you have a preferred course of action?  VerruckteDan (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * VerruckteDan, I've had your talk page on my watch list since the county template discussion and so saw this current discussion. You might want to look at the State Tartanfor inspiration for colors. Reb (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How I did Colorado's county nav templates in 2 days
Hi, Dan,

I noticed that you added a couple of Colorado county navigation templates that I'd skipped over (since there was only one community in the county), and that you're now working on Missouri. I thought you might like to know how I did all of Colorado (skipping those counties) in only 2 days.

Well, here's how I did it. Load that 7-zipped spreadsheet into Excel, and follow the instructions on the Instructions sheet. Hopefully the format suits you; it probably wouldn't be easy to change.

-- Ken g6 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Geobox problem
Hi Dan, User:Caroig is on wikibreak and I was wondering if you had any idea of fixing a bug in the Geobox Protected Area template? For details on the problem see here or ask if this is unclear. If you are not familiar with this, do you know anyone who is (given Caroig's absence)? Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We took the Geobox out altogether, so it is not an urgent problem. Thanks anyway, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dots on PA maps
Dan, I ran into a problem with the infobox settlement dot on maps. The coversation about it is a follows. They seem to be off by a hair to the south. It didn't really present itself as a worry until the dot was placed in Lycoming County as reads below. Dincher (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been including the dot on map for the boroughs of Tioga County. This one is presenting a problem. The dot looks more like it is in Lycoming County than it does Tioga. I realize that Liberty is right on the county line. Perhaps an adjustment in the location of dot in the template could be made. I would do it if I knew how. Any ideas? Dincher (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - I wonder if the calibrated PA map is slightly off? Might want to ask VerruckteDan if you have other problems. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in New Orleans
I was in the Big Easy last week and took a lot of pictures. I do not know all the buildings, but most pictures were taken from the skydeck of the Hilton New Orleans. Raime told me to contact you about getting them labeled correctly. I could email them to you or upload them with the default name (IMG_0826.JPG and such). What do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I have gotten most building images posted. I do not know most of these buildings (the last one is cropped from another but since there is no article it could at least use a decent picture to get started):


 * Thanks for all the pictures, I'm glad you found a good outside vantage point to get so many of the buildings. That's been one of those things I've been meaning to do, but so far have only worked on getting some good vantage points of the skyline as a whole.  I will work on getting the pictures transferred to the Commons with more discriptive names.  Hope you enjoyed your trip down here.  VerruckteDan (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Port Authority of Allegheny County Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Port Authority of Allegheny County 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 the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Port Authority of Allegheny County T Line Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Port Authority of Allegheny County T Line Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:St Louis Metro Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:St Louis Metro Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CDPs
As someone who has worked with county navboxes, you may find pages 1 and 2 interesting. I'd appreciate your input. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox problem
Hi Dan, if you have time could you please look at these infoboxes: Opéra (Paris Métro), Bourse (Paris Métro), Châtelet (Paris Métro). The map at the bottom is supposed to center if the box is wider than 280 px, but for some reason it does not (Bourse works as it should, the other two do not). Do you have any idea how to fix this? If you do, User:Lazulilasher would be very pleased (and I would be too). Thanks in advance for any ideas or help on this, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and see if I can figure out the problem. Hopefully, you are not putting more confidence in my template skills than actually exist.  It may be a few days, as I will be preoccupied with Carnival season.  Parades resumed last night and it generally a party every night until Mardi Gras.  VerruckteDan (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I know my skills have been exceeded here and I know yours are better than mine. As for Carnival, what a problem to have ;-) Enjoy, and thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)