User talk:Jrbray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am copying in information from my website www.forts.org.uk. Please don't nag me about copyright issues for text from that source.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fort_Charlotte
Hi, please don't delete wikilinks between pages, many of the links you deleted were extremely relevant to the article (e.g. ice age and glacier in the Solent article, and ornithology in Isle of Portland) or wikipedia standard (e.g. dates, unites of measurement). --Steinsky 23:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Those terms are in such common usage that it makes no sense to mention them in an article. Over-linking means the article becomes unreadable with link underscores/colours, until you are forced to switch off the differentiation, which them obscures the useful links.
Linking every noun badly impairs readabilty, and if people wonder what a glacier is, or what a mile is, they can look it up in a seperate window.
Perhaps Wikipedia will define an importance or common usage scale for links, defineable as a user preference, so we can get our different views of the same page automatically. Until then, be wary of over definition.
- You may be familiar with them, but most people do not know the details of how glaciers produce landforms such as the solent. The link was to a page describing the processes that created the solent, not a link to a dictionary definition of 'glacier'. --Steinsky 14:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All these links are to generic terms, not specialised articles relevant to this place. Do you really think people reading about the Solent come across the link 'sea' and think, 'I wonder what this strange thing a sea is, I must investigate further', and click on the link?
BTW it wasn't glaciers but ice-sheets melting, there is a big difference. And the flooding of the South coast rheas was caused by isostatic uplift. Now that is an uncommon technical term which a link would illuminate.
All this smacks of the early days of DTP, where everyone used huge numbers of fonts because they could, rather than considering what was useful.
I seem to be supprted by the links section of the Manual of Style
[edit] Amstrong cannon
I have added a photo to the article Rifled Breech Loader of a cannon I found in a fort near Bangkok, Thailand. However the cannon was labeled "Armstrong cannon", and it took me quite some time to make the connection between the two names. Can you verify that I guessed correctly, and an "Armstrong cannon" is really the Rifled Breech Loader? I have made a redirect Armstrong cannon. andy 12:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is indeed a rifled breach loading gun , but of a special type called a 'disappearing gun', where the recoil of the shot lowers the gun into the loading position you see, safe behind the parapet. Its specialised nature does not make it an ideal example.
William Armstrong was an industrialist who produced a wide range of gun designs, so it is likely to be one of his, but I'm not enough of an expert to say more. Jrbray
[edit] Fort Luton
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Fort Luton, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Addhoc 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Its hard to justify this article's existence. Jrbray 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
