User talk:Malepheasant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Archive 1, to 22 Feb 2007

Contents 1 An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Weston State Hospital, was selected for DYK! 2 Weston State Hospital 3 Geobox River 4 New NRHP Collaboration Division 5 tributaries 5.1 Discharge figures 6 Geobox River Clean-up 7 Big Wheeling Creek 8 Maybe I need clarification... 9 Disambiguating Ohio townships 10 Re: USACE pictures 11 Williamson Again 12 Matewan 13 Wheeling Creek 14 USACE Picture Dates Again

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Weston State Hospital, was selected for DYK!

On February 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Weston State Hospital, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weston State Hospital

My understanding is that bolding is useful if:

1. The title is in reasonably common use (how likely is it that this "alternative title" will be used for a link, or in the search box?)
2. The alternate title is in the first sentence, or at least, the first paragraph.
3. The title is an alternate name for the article topic (e.g. Brady Leaf goes to Ryan Leaf but is not bolded).

Since this is neither the first (it's been called "Weston State Hospital" for nearly a century), nor the second case (the titles are much lower in the article), I don't think it's pertinent to bold randomly in the article. Circeus 13:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox River

Fixed, there was a bug in the subtemplate that handles unit conversions, must have been there for some time. Thanks. – Caroig 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New NRHP Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tributaries

Thanks for setting me "right" on the left/right thing (I guess I stuck with the way we list crossings, going upstream rather than down. Daniel Case 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discharge figures

I see what you mean ... sort of assumed without looking too closely that those were the avg daily figure.

Is this something more like what you want (average daily discharges per year)? We could add (2005) to the footnote in question. Daniel Case 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could find a way to derive an all-time average from this data. Daniel Case 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That math, I believe, would be OK under the new policy:

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.

I've been incorporating this new data into the geoboxes I've been adding, starting with Wallkill River (which I can look at out my window as I'm typing, and definitely hear ... I live near this. It makes what's already a very time-consuming and painstaking process even more so, but it's worth it.

I love these geoboxes. Since I added one to Catskill Mountains and then Hudson River, I've been on one of my obsessive little tears putting them into every article for which a map was available in the Northeast. That's how I wound up getting so involved in those West Virginia rivers ... you've done a good job there! Daniel Case 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox River Clean-up

I'm planning to do some major cleanup to this Geobox. Based on this one I developped a few more similar Geoboxes to cover other geographic features and the "framework" has developped too. I'd like to bring the Geobox River template up-to-date with all other templates in this series. Don't worry, you would probably not notice – no fields are going to be removed, there will be no changes in the output, it's just cleaning-up the code.

Anyway, you seem to be definitely the most active user of this template, the most experienced one so I'd like to ask for some obeservations. Are then any issues, bugs, do you have any ideas for improvement? These would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (I've checked your edits, there's some inconsistency in some of the note fields concerning the field names, I see you corrected some, thanks for that, I'll try to track all remaning down.) – Caroig 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup's finished. I've checked the cleaned template on some pages and it seems everything's alright, I'll update the documentation and blank templates accordingly. I've renamed (shortened) a few fields but their old names are accepted too. If there are any issues, I'd appreciate if you report them. There are also some extra functions and a field for a second map. I've made some rather cosmetic changes concerning home some values and fields are displayed. I don't think the label Discharge elsewhere sounds very good, any idea? I'm also not very sure whether it wouldn't be better English to have Source confluence instead of current Sources confluence. – Caroig 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Second attempt. There's certain inconsistency in the template implementation which, until now, hasn't been very clear to me. Well, now I know. The problem was that some older pages have blank fields for metric fields when the values are in the imperial fields. Unfortunatelly, I was checking the imperial units (and actually the whole new code) on Monongahela River which is of a later date and doesn't have those blank metric fields. On initial lauch of the Geobox River I provided only one template which contained both types of fields, the newer blank templates have either metric or imperial values so one can't have problems with this. If you can, please start new pages with one of those blank templates from the bottom of the Geobox River page, they should always contain up-to-date fields. And another thing, when specifying the image or map width, you don't have to (actually shouldn't) put in px, just the number. Under certain circumstances it causes problems with alignment in some browsers. I apologize for the temporary broken output. Should be Ok now. – Caroig 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, the problem was that all newer Geobox use long_EW fields instead of long_WE which is in the Geobox River. The template now accepts both, I'll probably swap this using AWB fro better consistency. I've also corrected this in the blank templates. Again, thanks a lot for your feedback. – Caroig 07:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Wheeling Creek

Thanks for joining me on Wheeling Creek and creating the article. I simply started the watershed list and graph because I was curious. I've asked the Wikiproject editors about historical crests and floods, but do you think that should be on the article page or on a separate entry? Mphamilton 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe I need clarification...

Maybe you could clarify this for me. I really would like to include flood information on Wheeling Creek most notably the 1963, 1972, 1990, and 2004 floods on Big Wheeling Creek. Can these go on the Wheeling Creek article page rather than in separate articles for each event, or can a subsection be created on Wheeling Creek for historical flood events? Mphamilton 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating Ohio townships

Thanks for seeking to disambiguate the names of a couple townships in Ohio, but the Ohio townships Wikiproject guidelines want all township articles to include the name of the county. Nyttend 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: USACE pictures

See my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Williamson Again

Here is another USACE picture of Williamson, WV. Maybe better than the other one? This one seems to have the floodwall finished. [1] ●DanMS • Talk 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops! My mistake. That picture is West Williamson. ●DanMS • Talk 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matewan

Matewan, WV Here is another WV picture for you, not too far from Williamson. This one did not have a date specified. If you can estimate a date, feel free to put it on the picture description. ●DanMS • Talk 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheeling Creek

On 23 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wheeling Creek (West Virginia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USACE Picture Dates Again

Here is another reason to seriously question the dates given in the descriptions of the pictures on the USACE website. The date on this picture is given as August 1, 1992. Looks a lot more like October than August. ●DanMS • Talk 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)