User talk:FieldMarine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, FieldMarine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi there,

Please do not create too many wikilinks in your article Universal Ship Cancellation Society. More than one link to ship is redundant and useless. Regards, -- Iván Sánchez(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Ship Cover USS Brevard (AK-164) 1946.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Ship Cover USS Brevard Ship (AK-164) 1946.jpg. The copy called Image:Ship Cover USS Brevard Ship (AK-164) 1946.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on your ship cover

Say, do you know who did the cachet on Image:Ship Cover USS Brevard (AK-164) 1946.jpg ? If it was somebody like Artcraft, they would likely have a valid copyright on the artwork, and so the cover could not be in the public domain unless they released it. If it was a Navy person, and done on the job, it would be validly PD. (The 1930s cover I uploaded just has a plain text cachet, so nothing copyrightable there.) Stan 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Unit Insignia 4th CAG.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Unit Insignia 4th CAG.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image source problem with Image:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Desk

Hi. I've replied to your comment at the Help Desk. - Rjd0060 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Knives

Excellent job on starting the Randall article...I'll help you out as I can! Semper Fi! --Mike Searson 03:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of museums in the United States

Thank you for your work on List of museums in the United States! It is very helpful. Feel free to edit areas where I've added icons too. Here is how they work (I will explain this better on the talk page eventually:


{{museum|TYPE}}[[WIKI LINK]]<br>

TYPE is where I enter the type of museum it is. You can see all the types currently available here: Template:Museum

WIKI LINK is the Wikipedia link to that museum's page. If there is no Wikipedia page for that museum, then I use this format:


{{museum|TYPE}}[[WIKI LINK]] | [http://WEB LINK/ web]<br>

I still provide a Wikipedia link even though there is no page. This way we will get a red link that can be clicked for someone to easily add the page. In this situation (where there's no Wikipedia article), I also add WEB LINK to that museum's website. I do not do this for museums that already have Wikipedia pages because the website should be on that respective page.


Here are some locations where you need spaces and where you can't have spaces:

{{museum|TYPE}}(NO SPACE)[[WIKI LINK]](SPACE)|(SPACE)[http://WEB LINK/(SPACE)web]<br>

I have not found a way around using <br> on the end.

[edit] <br /> tags

I see that you're using proper <br /> tags. I had chosen to use regular <br> just plainly for simplicity. I want to make it as simple as absolutely possible so people don't take one look and immediately turn away when they want to add a museum. It is more confusing than it was before especially to someone who doesn't really know Wiki/HTML markup. Wikimedia automatically converts <br> to <br /> when it parses the page. For example, if you look in the page source somewhere where I did a <br>, you'll see that it does turn up as a proper <br />. I'd appreciate if you used regular <br> so it's all consistent.


Thanks again for your help with this article. I will also write this in its discussion page when I get around to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed museums

Hi, FieldMarine.

It doesn't say anything about closed museums - you are right. But I believe that List of museums in the United States should only contain museums that still are open. I think I should start List of defunct museums in the United States for closed museums. It's good that you raised this issue because I may have forgotten that I did that. I don't know if you noticed but the closed museums are still in the page but they are commented out with <!-- and --> tags. So we don't have to dig through the history to find them. I believe that I removed 3 closed museums if I can remember right.

You mentioned earlier about alphabetizing the icon key. I think this is a good idea, but I have them sort of grouped so similar ones are together. Is this okay with you?

I would like to work together on these issues and find a solution that suits us both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Space & Missile Museum

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I've wanted to see an article started for this great museum for a long time. I've got pictures of most of the exhibits there, I'll probably add a few more images to the gallery section, if there is anything specific that you would like to see that I might be able to add, please let me know. Fl295 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] church

hi. well, you placed Category:Florida Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs on the article and I was going with that. I have no source for the it though. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The church's website claims that the church is an "Historic Landmark of Brevard County." I'm not sure that means it's a Registered Historic Place. I'll look into it a bit more.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Melbourne, Florida) It is not on the National Register of Historic Places Also, FieldMarine, I appreciate your efforts on creating articles about places on the Treasure and Space coasts, but I am quite concerned about your reverts of my attempts to improve this article. The parish is historic. The chapel building is historic. The building and the parish are intertwined. You really cannot separate the two. I don't want to get into a revert war with you. clariosophic (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Melbourne, Florida) Oblique View.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Oblique View).jpg. The copy called Image:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Oblique View).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP Meetup in Miami next next Saturday

  In the area? You're invited to
   Miami Meetup 2
  Date: Saturday, January 19, 2008
  Place: Bayside Marketplace, 3:00PM EST
  Miami Meetup 2

Hope you can come! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Infobox Military Structure

I didn't remove the image; I just moved it down to the bottom of the box, to avoid having a long stack of images at the top. Is that a problem? Kirill 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transferring list of museums comments

Thanks!

Ben Boldt (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have done things differently... I think the table format is bloated and looks sloppy. I think if you want to see more info about a museum, you should click on it and view the article and leave the list nice and concise. I would like to have the map at the top of each page to navigate between them too. We should brainstorm for a while and think about what needs to be done to make this better because I agree that it seems almost destroyed in its current state. We could work on some stuff in some sandboxes for a while and when we get things looking better we could ask around and see if people support our ideas. Because I have a feeling if we don't have some backup this guy is going to undo all the changes...

I really think the lists should contain only the name and the icon to show what kind it is, plus a web link if there's no article, just like how it was before. I thought it was very easy to read.

Ben Boldt (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brevard topics

Thanks for all your work on Brevard county articles, both new and existing. Has improved area content dramatically! Student7 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. Marines

It was an unintentional mistake. The proper fixes will be made. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please revert list of museums in US stuff!

I would like it if you did that. It would not be convincing if I did it because I already did it once and he RE-DID his changes and continued on even after I told him to hold on for us to discuss his changes. If two separate people undo his disaster then we have more leverage.

Reverting is easier if you install Twinkle into your Wikipedia account. Here's how:

Create this page: User:FieldMarine/monobook.js

and type this into it:

importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');

If you don't like it, just erase that code and that will uninstall it. You can see this page for more info on how to use Twinkle: Wikipedia:TWINKLE

Ben Boldt (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crane Creek in Melbourne, Florida

Hey, I was trying to improve the internal link in Florida Institute of Technology and I was wondering if you had enough information to write an article about Crane Creek in Melbourne, Florida. Currently, "Crane Creek" is a redirect to Crane Creek in California. Thanks! I look forward in working with you. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a red-link for Crane Creek so that it is a disambig page instead of a redirect. The proposed title will be Crane Creek (Melbourne, Florida). Thanks again. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the note on the U.S. museum list

I'll take a look. Noroton (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk

[edit] "of" or "in" in categories

In categories, sometime I see "of" used & sometimes "in" used, such as "Category:Parks in the United States" or "Category:Lakes of the United States". I know this is splitting hairs, but is there official guidance for which one to use? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Enjoy. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your question, suggesting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) might be what you want. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Man’s Barnstar

Is it possible to change the Working Man’s Barnstar to just Worker’s Barnstar? I want to give that award to an editor. Not that I’m overly PC, I just honestly don’t know their gender. Just a thought. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you put {{subst:The Working Man's Barnstar|message ~~~~|n}} then the following will be produced:
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
message The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Hester Wagner Community House Sign 1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Hester Wagner Community House Sign.jpg. The copy called Image:Hester Wagner Community House Sign.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Original Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg. The copy called Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Original Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg. The copy called Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Court

Not all landmarks are buildings or structures. For example, Sugarloaf Mountain, in Rio de Janeiro, is a landmark. Therefore you were wrong to eliminate this category. MdArtLover (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings -- I have been to the Vernon Court & it is very nice. On this article article, I eliminated the Category:Houses because the article already contained Category:Houses in Rhode Island, which is a subcat of Category:Houses. Thus, it is redundant to have it in the upper level category when it is covered by a lower level, more specific category. So I am unclear about your comment regarding Landmarks or buildings category -- these categories remain unchanged. What exactly do you disagree with? FieldMarine (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please disregard my quibble. I was mistaken. I hope that in future I'll read more carefully! MdArtLover (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girimulya Surakarta

Is actually a section within/ie inside the imogiri graveyard and as such does not constitute a separate graveyard SatuSuro 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - I have needed to get back to the main article and get my head around some of the issues about such an article - there are hundreds of internees who technically need articles about themselves (1650's to now) and I have not had the headspace to deal with them - so any category is fine for the moment - it may take time to deal with :| SatuSuro 12:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a very long story which i may if i am mad enough hope to make into a book - 'sultan agung' and I - a sort of scottish ancestry australian accidentally wandering into the depths of the javanese traditional graveyard system and walking out again - back into australian society and never getting a phd finished about it all - i hope theres enough humour in it :( SatuSuro 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Museum discussions

I've asked Ben Boldt to comment on the discussion at Talk:List of museums in the United States when he gets back. After he's commented (or if he still hasn't been back to Wikipedia after a few more days), I think it's time to wrap up the discussions and decide that we have a consensus on what the lists should look like to start out with. I've begun adding lots of museums from the online list you had linked to, starting with List of museums in Rhode Island and List of museums in Maine. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified my comments at CFD on defunct museum catgories. I have no axe to grind on this one, but I do get fed up of editors (not you) proposing to upmerge an intersection category to only one of its parents. If that happens, then sets of articles disappear from a whole taxonomy. I hope that is clear now. Cheers, - Fayenatic (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for prompting me to be clearer! - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I took the museums in all the state defunct museum categories and stuck them into "Defunct museums" sections at the bottom of each relevant state list-of-museums article. So at least not all of your work with them was in vain. I can't support keeping the categories, but I don't feel strongly about it. At some point when there are more museums to fill the categories, they'll be restored. In fact, I think it's inevitable, but I don't think there will be enough support for keeping them now. Best, Noroton (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your Help desk questions

I replied to your Help desk questions, to what extent I could:

I mention this here because that Help desk question is starting to age, drifting higher on the page, and further discussion there may not attract notice. --Teratornis (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)++

[edit] Melbourne International Airport

Thank you for your kind words about the airport. I will review the article of course. Jamonsontai and I have a nice working arrangement. He does all the work and (if everyone likes it) I take all the credit!  :) Actually I would have included you before you wrote me! I have nearly no eye for pictures but will do my best. Thanks for your contributions. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, every year I see people mispronounce, misspell (or both) my name... but this one's a new one... lol - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum lists inclusion criteria

Hi FM,

Could you please look at this diff at the Alaska museum list talk page and tell me if you think that's a good way of posting it? I'd like your advice before I put a copy of that on all the other talk pages. I think the Talk:List of museums in Alabama]] page already says the same thing but with different language. If you think the Alabama page should be changed, how would you do it? I'm really not sure. If you want to make changes there, feel free, but I won't. Noroton (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Why not add a sentence on the talk page "Inclusion criteria" section that reads: "Also inappropriate for this list are planetariums, List of aquaria and List of zoos, which have their own lists."? I'd include the links I include here but mask them with the words "aquaria" and "zoos". I wouldn't imply that it was the paragraph that got consensus, I'd just state it in the next paragraph. I'd also like to include a sentence at the top of every list noting that there is a "See also" section at the bottom where other institutions are listed. I think doing all that would do the trick.
(2) No, I don't like including the closed museums in the regular list at all. I think it just introduces needless confusion for the reader. The sortable lists allow us to quickly group like items and narrow down searches. I don't see any reason why someone would want closed and open museums in the same bunch. It's just easier all around to separate open and closed museums into different lists.

(3) I like the General information section you added. Why don't I add that when I add the other section to the talk page.

If you agree to what I'm suggesting here, I'll begin making the changes across all the state lists. Noroton (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll start doing it then. By the way, as to the regions: I'd like to try them out. If there's a disagreement about regions, it seems to me it can be solved simply by listing the counties that are in each region. If regions are vague, I don't see that as a major problem, because I don't think it will cause major confusion. Any reader really confused can look up the town link, which often comes with a little map (at least they do in Connecticut) or maps are available on the web. The "region" is named just to give people an idea that certain museums are in the same general area. If needed, it wouldn't be too difficult to list the Alabama counties that we could put in each of the regions I name in that listing. My intention is to leave the "region" column empty in most states and maybe someone from that state would fill it in. I might fill in the equivalent of "Birmingham area" for major cities in a state, but again, I don't see vagueness as a problem initially, and if it becomes a problem I think it can be worked out. At least, I think so. Noroton (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For your many contributions...

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is for your tireless efforts in creating and improving Florida articles, specifically, but not limited to, articles on subjects in Brevard County. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wickham Park, Manchester, CT

Thank you for your message, and for asking me if I had anny objections on renaming Wickham Park, Manchester, CT to Wickham Park (Manchester, Connecticut).

I do not have any objections at all to the suggested change of name. The only reason why I changed the name — from Wickham Park to Wickham Park, Manchester, CT — was to differentiate it from Wickham Park here in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (where I live).

As you have requested, I will go to the talk page for Wickham Park, Manchester, CT and comment there. All the best. Figaro (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Figaro (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Jail Museum

This was my reasoning in separating the pages: There are many jail and prison museums that don't have "Old Jail" in their name. I think we agree that some list of these museums is useful on Wikipedia. But disambiguation pages are only for disambiguating names, as Wikipedia:Disambiguation repeatedly states. If there were some overriding, overwhelming reason to contradict the guideline, I would have no problem with that, but it seems to me that the separate list would serve the separate purpose of listing all the museums and doing it in different ways from the disambiguation page. For instance, we might make the "List of prison museums" a sortable table or organize it by geography. Both pages should link to each other, of course. I'm also concerned about the title "Old Jail Museum", which is fine for a disambiguation page but doesn't fit Wikipedia style for article pages. Therefore either readers won't be able to figure out the prison museum list by themselves and simply type it in the search function, or we need redirect pages. Redirect pages take up about as much space on Wikipedia's servers as a prison list page would. So what's the point in combining them? I see no confusion or extra work involved in having two pages. Ultimately, uniform style helps readers concentrate on what they're looking for rather than having to adjust to different list styles on the same subject. Noroton (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a comment at Talk:List of jail and prison museums and suggest that the discussion continue there. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice would be welcome

I'd like to pick your brain about two different things:

  1. I recently created List of science museums in the United States and, more as an experiment than anything else, I created three different columns on the subject of "type". The idea was to try to better capture the subjects covered in the museum in a way that would allow someone to search for those that might have a secondary focus on something. But I have a lot of doubts that it can work well, and it may just be confusing. If you're interested, please take a look and tell me what you think on the talk page there.
  1. I discovered Category:Prison museums which has a subcategory for prison museums in Australia. Whatever we do with the disambiguation page (and two editors from WP:MOSDAB are saying we should combine them, and I can go along with that), do you think it would be better to have a separate United States list (and maybe an Australian list and a U.K. list) or should we combine them into one worldwide list? To me, it's a question of what would be most useful for readers, but I don't know what that would be. Any advice on either of these would be appreciated. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re the table in the list of science museums: It looks great to me. You might want to consider deleting the "tertiary" column unless you have a reasonable hope that there will eventually be at least several entries in it; renaming the "tertiary" column to "Other focus" or just "Tertiary focus"; and/or renaming the "Notes" column to "Official museum website" or something.
Re categories and splitting pages: the way the categories are organized does not have to be the same as the way the list(s) is/are organized; it could be argued that it's better for them to be different, otherwise they're giving redundant information (though it could also be argued that it's better for them to be the same, so never mind -- just organize each one, lists or categories, in the way that makes the most sense without regard to how the other is organized; at least, that's my suggestion but I don't have experience with that particular situation.) Re splitting a page: I would suggest having them all on one page unless that page is overly long, a large number of screenfuls of information, and splitting them would result in most of the smaller pages being more than one screenful long. When considering how to split them, you need to consider WP:NPOV. I think it might not be NPOV to have one United States list and one "everything except the United States" list. It just doesn't seem like a balanced international point of view to do that. Or, maybe it would be OK. I'm not sure. You could consider splitting them by continent or something. It's OK, in my opinion, to have a few pages that are for individual countries or continents and other pages that are for a group of many countries or continents, if some countries or continents don't have enough entries to justify a page by themselves. Use your judgement as to how long is too long for one page; or see WP:SUMMARY which says "What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long." For lists, it may be a smaller number of bytes representing a similar number of screenfuls of information to an article of that length; or maybe it really is the number of bytes that's important. If nobody else objects, it's largely up to you how to do it.
I think both of you are doing good work here. These lists of museums look quite useful. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
FieldMarine, I'll let you take care of the merging, as you suggested. Noroton (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Historical Society

FM, Good question, I think I errored... I was searching for other Aviation Hall of Fames, finding the Florida HOF and in looking for the Florida Aviation Historical Society I hit on the Florida History Society, and must have thought "eureka!" and dropped the references accordingly. Now seeing my error, I'll removed the links. I'll drop them on the Talk:Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame for any future references or needs. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers! Lance... LanceBarber (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. Lance... LanceBarber (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Eau Gallie Yacht Club

A tag has been placed on Eau Gallie Yacht Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] National monuments

Could you please explain why you depopulated the category and requested speedy deletion of the category? Many of your edits seem to be unhelpful. Bastin 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The eliminated category was redundant & confusing considering the existing, well used cat Monuments & memorials. The large majority of monuments in almost all countries are actually listed under the cat Monuments & memorials with only a few in the singular Monuments cat. Additionally, there is no corresponding National memorials cat to match the National monuments cat. By eliminating the National monuments cat, there are useful & more consistent groupings. For example, National Memorials of the U.S. and National Monuments of the U.S. are collocated under the Cat Memorial and monuments in the US, making it much easier to navigate & provides better hierarchical structure & logical taxonomy. What problem specifically do you have with organizing in that manner? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Cat:National monuments was a subcategory of Cat:Monuments and memorials. Hence, the fact that the latter category is well-used is hardly surprising, and the fact that a separate subcategory existed for national monuments is entirely appropriate. If the concern was that there is assymetry, you should have done was proposed renaming Cat:National monuments to Cat:National monuments and memorials under the process of WP:CfR. Depopulating a category manually for the purpose of making it qualify for speedy deletion is vandalism. I am fixing the issue now. Bastin 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Refining categories & eliminating redundant ones is not vandalism...it's done on a daily basis in wikipedia. These categories still don't follow a logical flow. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Marines

Hello FieldMarine,

ERcheck and I have argeed to add a note on the "list" as to what is expected of those who edit and add names to said list. Since you are a regular editor of the list, I hope that you agree with us and help us in making sure that other people follow the rules when adding names to the list. Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I have notified ERcheck that you have joined us in our quest. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leatherneck

I would like to create a separate article for United States Marine Corps use of the term Leatherneck for use in redirects in main articles written about Marines. I was thinking I could move the current Leatherneck article to “Leatherneck (disambiguation)” so I could use that article title for the article currently located at User:FieldMarine/Sandbox 2. I would like your opinion on that? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The USMC use is certainly the primary meaning of the term, and there is no other article with that exact title, so the move makes sense to me. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Order Question

Quick question because I'm still learning about categories. I noticed in this edit you changed the order of the cats. Is there a guideline somewhere as to the order? I admit to being guilty of listing rather haphazardly. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I alphabetize cats if I make a change to one & in this case, the change was making "Defunct Museums" to "Defunct Museums in the United States". This sometimes adds to consistency across the board, but not always. I'm not aware of any guidance for ordering cats. If there is a logical reason to order them differently, I would go for it. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, no logical reason to do it otherwise. I tend to just add on when I find a new or missed cat. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Aquaria in Venezuela

A tag has been placed on Aquaria in Venezuela requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Oore (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical society

Sorry for the redundant addition of the Rhode Island Historical Society..I didn't notice the official state h.s. section. Feel free to remove it. Swampyank (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My absence

I have sort of lost interest in the lists of museums when they all changed. This is unfortunate. They are growing very well though. I may contribute here and there but I am no longer obsessed with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mayfield Park

Thanks for your contribution to Mayfield Park, Hampshire, cleaning up the references. I knew the long list of references was messy, but I had no idea it could be optimised this way. Your changes have helped me to discover something new about Wikipedia. Its been very helpful and is much appreciated. Hethurs (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)