User talk:DanTD/Archive. June 2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ron and Amelia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ron and Amelia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim Possible images

Yes, that's exactly the problem, the images are just used for decoration - they don't add anything that can't be described in text (WP:NFCC#1), there are far too many (WP:NFCC#3a), and removing them doesn't significantly reduce the reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8). See WP:NFC for an overview of non-free image policy; this link is also useful. Black Kite 21:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Train Station

I responded to your message on the talk page for the train station (the NHRP one) before it occurred to me to respond to you here! But yes, merging is a good idea.  :) Chrissypan (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Florida CR shields

I will start to work on those shields if yoou want me to. I just need to finish the Ocean Drive Shield. I am working on that right now. Carpetmaster101 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge train station articles

The merger is a great idea! The only thing I ask is that somehow a search for the original name also pops up the new article, since it's officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places that way. I know there is a way to do it, but I don't have time to figure that out right now... Can you do that? Chrissypan (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: NY 25D

What is it exactly that you're trying to source from Wikimapia that can't be sourced from any other map? Any of the annotations that users have added to Wikimapia aren't reliable sources for the same reason that we can't cite other Wikipedia articles or any other wiki. -- Kéiryn (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How does it confirm changes? Why can't you use Google or Yahoo? -- Kéiryn (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, anything drawn on Wikimapia is not reliable. If the "relevant links" are reliable, then cite them directly instead. -- Kéiryn (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If all you're doing is highlighting certain things, then yes, I suppose that would be okay for the route description – even that might be a stretch, since any schlub can go onto Wikimapia and label a random road as a former section of 25D. Either way, that's not how the reference is being used in the article. A map can't show that parts of Nassau Boulevard "were then converted into service roads for the expressway while NY 25D was moved onto the expressway as it was completed." The text on Wikimapia does state that, but that part is *not* reliable. -- Kéiryn (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Any schlub can make a map, but schlubby maps aren't reliable sources for citing. Ones that are professionally made, fact-checked, and formally published are. And, yes, it is very much impossible for a present-day map to show that a road was converted to a service road in the 1950s when the LIE was built. The most it can possibly show is that it is currently a service road.

Congratulations on expanding the article (as I assume that's what I was supposed to look for by reading the history). However, it's not perfect yet. I'm just trying to give you a tip so you can make further improvements. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico

Scott told me New Mexico DOT is worse than Oklahoma, isn't New Mexico DOT honestly that bad. Scott said once he almost got lost in northeast New Mexico by lacking blue arrows pointing N,S,W,and E. But most signs I saw on interstate-guide like I-10 points to n,s,w,e. What Scott meant by New Mexico has poor signage. Is this true some other "Trans, DOT is even dangerous?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Florida State Road 35

Wondering why there's no article for this. Was it overlooked? Is there an easy way to get the specifics for SR 35 online? If so I can create the article. - Marc Averette (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Main Street Station (Richmond) NRHP infobox

What a coincidence...great minds and all that. Actually, I'm just working through Lists of National Historic Landmarks as part of WP:NRHP making sure they all have designation dates and certain references...easiest way is in the infobox. You mentioned making an infobox...are you familiar with the Elkman generator? It nicely prepares the filled in nrhp template, filled with info periodically from an info dump from some official place. Hmmm....apparently I'm weak on the details, but it works great! I'm at work right now, and don't have the web address, but let me know if you need it and I'll send it from home.Lvklock (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas Pacific vs. Texas and Pacific

I found this line from the article on New Orleans Union Station;

   New Orleans at the time of the station's construction had several separate railway stations including the Texas Pacific Railroad-Missouri Pacific Railroad Station on Annunciation St. between Melpomene and Thalia Streets; The Louisiana and Arkansas-Kansas City Southern Railroad Station at 705 S. Rampart Street; the Southern Railway Terminal at 1125 Canal Street and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Station, on Canal St. near the Mississippi River.

Should that link read "Texas & Pacific," or was this a different railroad with a similar name? ----DanTD (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You ask a good question, and I cannot provide a total answer. Both the Missouri Pacific Railroad and the Texas and Pacific Railway served New Orleans. Terminal trackage for these carriers in the New Orleans area was owned by a separate, wholly owned subsidiary, named the Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal Company of New Orleans. Note that this subsidiary company does not have the "&" or "and" between Texas Pacific.

Reference to the terminal company would thus not have the ampersand or and, while reference to the parent corporations would have this detail. Most would probably consider either name form correct in the above usage. The terminal was operated by TP-MPT RR, while the passenger trains operating into the terminal were trains of the T&P and the MP. It makes for a confusing situation. RI-Bill (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's a pain in the ass. I still hope it's possible to correct this, or at least find a legitimate way to eliminate the redlink. ----DanTD (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Agreed. Why not just leave the name form as is (signifying the terminal company) but link to Texas and Pacific Railway, referring to the actual identity of the passenger trains operating into the station? Likewise, the Louisiana & Arkansas reference needs to be linked to Louisiana and Arkansas Railway.RI-Bill (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)