User talk:Rmhermen
|
|
Old talk at User talk:Rmhermen/Archive1, User talk:Rmhermen/Archive2, User talk:Rmhermen/Archive3, User talk:Rmhermen/Archive4
| Contents |
National Parks Project: Dates of Establishment
Hey Rmherman, I started making changes to some National Monuments which were very similar to your goal for your National Parks Project before I actually stumbled across your project page. I would like to continue your work, in a slow fashion, with some of the National Monuments.
The real topic for discussion, however, is dates of establishment. Your tabular format of your project lists a date of establishment, which appears to be the date of an area's most recent designation. I feel it is very useful to see the whole history, for intance to see that Congaree National Park was protected by the NPS first in 1976 as a National Monument, and then in 2003 as a National Park. Knowing that the establishment of the area happened in 1976 is at least as important as the fact that it changed designations in 2003. I have amended several of your pages to include this.
Do you have any opinions about standardizing my idea for your project?
- Well, it isn't really "my" project. It is a Wikiproject of which I am perhaps the only remaining active participant and I haven't done a lot there recently either. First remember that the infobox is set up as an international standard and the additions that you propose don't mean anything for the parks of, say, South Africa. The detail should certainly go in the text where it is easier to describe the history of classification and often boundary changes the areas go through. I don't strongly oppose it but I don't know that I see it as necessary. I feel the detail in the article is most important. Remember, too, that there are a couple hundred U.S. articles you are proposing changing. Rmhermen 16:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I know there are a couple hundred areas in the National Park System, but I don't believe the list of those which have changed designations is very daunting (based on my small sample of articles from NPS, and my personal visitation to at least 15% of them.) I did *not* know that the infobox was an international standard. I tried to come into this conversation prepared, but I missed something. Can you direct me to information about this?
- I concede that making reference to "U.S. National Park" and "U.S. National Monument" in the international standard infobox isn't as meaningful as I had hoped them to be. Since the purpose of the infobox is for quick reference, though, it seems more appropriate that the date of the area's original designation to be listed. For example, do you want to know that Katmai National Park and Preserve got its new name in 1980, or that it became part of the Park System in 1918? I suppose that presents problems for the parks that were re-shaped or split... (More information about the layout of the infobox may make me sound like an ignorant whiner, so please don't consider me a pest yet.)
- P.S. Do you use a Windows-based computer to redraw the dot maps? If so, what program do you use to edit the PNG files? (Again, I hope I've done my research and that I'm not talking about something that's already answered somewhere close...) Mrendo 16:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- The project main page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas. It was originally started by someone working on the parks of Australia. The blank map for the U.S. is at /Map Locators/United States and any graphics program which can handle JPG or better PNG can be used to add a red dot. I used Adobe PhotoDeluxe but many programs will work. Rmhermen 17:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Proofs
Hi, I noticed that you moved the proofs out of the article on Mobius transformation. Why? This goes against the current style guidelines established for proofs. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs if you think the guideline should be changed. linas 01:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- We discontinued support for / subpages in an earlier version of the software and decided that pages should have independent titles. Rmhermen 01:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Where does it officially say that this has been discontinued? The use of /Proofs subdirectory is discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. No one in that conversation seemed to make mention of this, I'm guessing no one was aware of this; it actually seemed like a very good solution to the problem. Problem is the proofs are not really worthy of their own pages, they're kind of cruddy; they're kind of like glorified special-purpose talk pages. I'm somewhat flabbergasted at the discontinuation, since large parts of the wiki still use sub pages. Your talk page right here uses three subpages!! Is there a fixed date by which these will need to be abandoned? Will there be automated migration scripts? linas 02:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
USS Maine
I disagree. The article on the Naval Historical Center ([1] (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm))states that evidence of a mine or other methods of sabotage is slim and unlikely. Due to Anti-Spain sentiments at the time, it was easy to jump to the conclusion that the Spanish sabotaged the ship. Any sabateur would have to work a con right out of Ocean's Eleven. Reems of armed guards were on duty and lookouts were posted to watch for waterborne sabateurs. While the cause is disputed. It is extremely unlikely that sabotage was to blame and the dispute is often between two accidental causes.
(By the way: your talk page is 87 kilobites long! Might want to archive some of this stuff)
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly you can form your own opinion. But you cannot deny and acknowledge that there is still significant debate over the issue as the article describes in detail. Rmhermen 15:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Muir Wood National Monument
Thanks for your feedback and updates to the Muir Woods page. I will spend some more time reviewing the style guide to ensure that future articles meet the standards of the site. I am aware of the date convention. I apparently missed one of the dates while making my changes.
You asked if I made the map. I did. Is there an issue that needs to be addressed on the map?
Epolk 16:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Titles
You wrote:
Someone just created several pages like Lord Lieutenant of Argyll and Bute -that one with just one unwikified entry. I thought you would be the one to know if they are useful or improvable. Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think that these can be improved, if the full list of office-holders is added. Otherwise, of course, the articles are of no use at all. -- Emsworth 22:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
List of British units in American Revolution
Hey,
I've linked directly to most numbered regiments on that page because i'm hoping that articles will be created for each individual regiment. I fear it won't be complete until about 2020 :-(
Most of the British infantry regiments on the British forces in Revolution page were merged with each other in 1881 so, in my opinion, the numbered ones do deserve their own page. The ones that weren't amalgamted should, unless they've had a history longer than the current EU constitution or just deserve their own page, be made redirects to whatever they are called now or what the used to be called until they too were merged. Meh, the history of the British Army is so damned inconvenient at times.
I've probably made all that sound disjointed. The approach looks something like this:
- The Royal Scots have never amalgamated so their numbered name (1st Regiment of Foot, etc) is redirectd to it.
- The 33rd and 76th Regiments of Foot were amalgamated to form the Duke of Wellington's Regiment in 1881 so they should have their own pages.
- There were three regiments numbered 79th. They should be made into a disambig page leading to seperate 79th articles if they're warranted. SoLando 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think I'm prob atop the wheel and travelling on it as i'm using the format that is, with a few exceptions, used for most British Army regiments on Wikipedia. The articles that haven't were probably fleshed out by using text for predecessor regiments. Take care SoLando 16:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Michigan wealthiest cities
I got the numbers from Wikipedia itself: there is a surprisingly convenient list of Michigan locations by per capita income that I was hoping to find on Wikipedia before but it's buried but among the per capita income articles and not among the Michigan articles. I figured it's incorporation in some way to at least one Michigan article was important and otherwise would have gone to waste in some way. I also added the list and the notes at the end of the subsection to clarify some of the colloquial and misconstrued ideas about Michigan's richest and poorest cities. Since the numbers come from the US Census Bureau, I suppose that's the source. I've updated the Michigan page to reflect this, along with the year in which these numbers were calculated. Gsgeorge 17:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
French and Indian War
Forgive me if I get a little crude, but
Why do you insist on reverting my edits to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham article? Only overzealousness and aloofness could explain your restoring the phrase "French and Indian War (US)" to the battlebox given my entry in the talk page. Also, my changes to the opening paragraph eliminate two redundant words and are no longer grammatically ambiguous - again, you revert without reason.
I'll desist from further editing until we've reached some understanding, of course. Albrecht 01:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Your edits have not reduced grammatical ambiguity, they have introduced factual error. The Seven Year's War is not known as the French and Indian War in the United States as your first edit claimed. It is known as the Seven Year's War. The North American theater of that war is known as the Frewnch and Indian War in the U.S., however, which is what the article originally stated. Your second edit made little grammatical sense, "the French and Indian War of the Seven Years War". Would you say the Pacific War of the Second World War? Or the Great Patriotic War of the Second World War? I would say the "known as the Pacific War, a theatre of the Second World War." And as for removing it from the battlebox, this appears to me to be your overzealousness in removing American English in favor (favour) of Commomwealth terms. Rmhermen 14:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- You're spilling out grievances against the immaterial. You can belabour my first edit all you want while making stuff up about the other that followed. Or, you can accept that after you pointed out its weakness; I revised my edit as follows:
- The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, fought September 13, 1759, was a decisive battle of the North American theatre (known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War) of the Seven Years' War.
- Unless you somehow ignore parentheses, you've got little grounds to complain of any factual error. The sentence merely (and correctly) states that the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War is known in the U.S. as the "French and Indian War". Similarly, one could say that the Far Eastern theatre of the Second World War is known to Americans as the "Pacific War", or that the Eastern Front is known to Russians as the "Great Patriotic War". Where's the problem?
- I find your entry to the battlebox unsightly and just plain unnecessary. A link to French and Indian War is given in the first paragraph of the article's text. And if, heavens forbid, an American were to enter the Seven Years' War article by mistake, be assured that, again, (s)he'd almost immediately find a link to French and Indian War (second paragraph). This isn't a question of nomenclature - I've stated before that I'm more than willing to accommodate American terms wherever appropriate. But your penchance for the plastering of this terminology into every cranny of every article (see Battle of Fort Oswego) - even at the expense of style or spacing - goes beyond "appropriate" and on to "overzealous". And it's mere sophistry of you to suggest that because I've dared remove a single phrase from a battlebox, I must be acting on some inverse fervor. As a Quebecois, you can be sure that I'm not terribly infatuated with British English and its historiography. I say "Seven Years' War" because - guess what? - that's what the rest of the world says as well. The United States is the only nation to deviate from the accepted name. Or maybe you'd care to explain to me how the Dutch, French, Russians, Germans, Spaniards, and Swedes are all simply deluded and enamoured with the British Commonwealth? Albrecht 15:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Looking over the article again, I find that what bugs me most about the battlebox is "(US)". This isn't really needed, but I can otherwise tolerate "French and Indian War". I still think my edit to the first paragraph should stay, though. Albrecht 16:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem removing the US, however it is important that each article contain a link to French and Indian War. Most Americans have never heard of the Seven Years War and almost none would connect that term to an North American war. If I didn't read the phrase correctly I don't see how "was a decisive battle of the North American theatre (known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War) of the Seven Years' War." is better than the original "was a decisive battle of the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War (a theatre known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War)." which doesn't include a parenthetical phrase in the middle of a sentence. I consider that bad style in most cases. Rmhermen 16:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- To me, repeating the words "a theatre" seems like worse style than displacing parenthetical content, but I'm no authority on this. Albrecht 16:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs
Dear Rmhermen, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Controlled Combustion Engine
Hi, I was wondering why you moved the page because Controlled Combustion Engine is a name and not a description eg. the FBI page isn't Federal bureau of investigation. - Diceman 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Unless it is a trademark or other type of proper name, it should only have the first term capitalized: like Internal combustion engine. Rmhermen 13:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Kelleys Island Glacial Grooves
Great job in adding glacial grooves information on the Kelleys Island page. How did you manage to do it so quickly? I put in a suggestion for it on Sunday night. On Monday morning it was done.
Is there an appropriate way to have "Glacial Grooves" or Glacial Grooves State Memorial/Park" show up in a search? Regards, DD
- Coincidence. I never saw your request but I was just on the island this weekend. We could have an article on glacial groves of which the pictured one is not the only example. I don't know if there is enough information to have a whole article on the Memorial but perhaps it could be a section in the as-yet-unwritten Kelleys Island State Park article? Rmhermen 16:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I just took a shot at adding Glacial Grooves myself - before I saw your note above. Hope it's OK DD
Mississippi State Parks
Thanks for expanding the list of Mississippi state parks. The state's website (http://www.mdwfp.com/level1/parks.asp) says there are 28 parks, but I can only find 24 named there. The current wikilist is 25. What was your source for the list of parks? Thanks. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:14, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)