This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I've been trying to follow the procedure followed within many of our meteorology and tropical cyclone articles. After re-reading the Manual of style, it appears several variations are possible, but that it needs to remain consistent within that article. If a certain type of citation is needed for an article to become GA or FA class, why not do it early on in an article's life cycle to save a lot of work later in the article's life? I can tell you that a lack on inline citations will generally keep me from updating an article because of all the extra work it would entail to upgrade its class. Thegreatdr 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hike395, I would value your input in a discussion about merging some articles into Mount Rainier National Park. See: Talk:Mount Rainier National Park#Merge Longmire, Paradise and Sunrise. Thanks Patleahy 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take a look and comment. :) --mav 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Template:Coor dms mountain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Andy Mabbett 22:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Schematic long valley caldera.gif was tagged for deletion because there was no source information. Sure, there's a copyright tag saying it's UGSG, but all images on Wikipedia need to explicitly say where they came from.
I have added the information to the image page and removed the deletion tag. If you find any images without source, please could you do the same to avoid them being tagged for deletion. I could not find the original image on Commons, so I have tagged it as a move candidate. If you know where it is on commons, please can you either ((ncd)) tag the wikipedia copy, or let me know and I'll do it. - Papa November 1 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I was really surprised when I searched for the article and a similar picture wasn't already there! I always heard it was the most photographed mountain. Hmph. -- Siradia 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to upload any flickr pic I have. Sometimes I browse through them looking for ones of possible use on wikipedia, but I have trouble keeping track of all the photos! So yea, go for it! Pfly 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I thank you very much. I appreciate this award. Hmains 03:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hike, since you have a good relationship with Hmains, can you help settle a disagreement we are having? Please see the bottom of Talk:Natural history. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, fast on the draw adding that photo, less than one minute after page creation! Pfly 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Has there been an official decision about the waterfall infobox vs. template? I noticed you'd already changed a couple of North Carolina waterfalls. 5minutes 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with it, but you may have jumped the gun. I just hadn't seen too many others say anything about it. The WF Project members are occasionally pretty slow to respond to anything. 5minutes 09:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you not remove the link to Belmont Shore Now from the Belmont Shore page? It is not spam, but it is a resource for users! Just like the business association! --- Thopunk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:36:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
ya, definitely not a spam link. it is a community website... similar to Yelp, where people can rate and review businesses in the area. there does happen to be forums, but that is not the main purpose of the website.. the ratings and reviews are. there is also a real estate section. i made the site because the current "business association" website (which for some reason is not being counted as spam), is terrible and unmodern. this town is hip and they need a hip website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thopunk (talk • contribs).
check out the links on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Heights%2C_Long_Beach%2C_California
same thing. you should just let them all be lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thopunk (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Based upon your username, I assume you live near HWY 395. In case you live in the vicinity of HWY 2, let me invite you to join a party of Wikipedians that's forming to climb a little 3rd-class peak some time this fall. RSVP ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I just said on my talk page that I don't mind at all, PatLeahy (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Just like to say thanks for filling in the document at Infobox Mountain with the definition of parent peak. I couldn't figure out how to do it. I'm adding it to British peaks at the moment (which are the only ones I'm sure about.)
Cheers - Mark J 09:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this message is sent to you because you've shown some interest in the Geobox templates in past. There is now a new version (aka Geobox 2) which supersedes all older Geoboxes (aka Geobox 1). The major difference is there are no feature specific templates (Settlement, River, Mountain range etc.) but just one master template which can handle all type of data. There are a couple of new features and many new fields making the template much more versatile so now it can be used for virtually any geography related feature without the need to create a specific template.
The switch to Geoboxes 2.0 is highly recommended as the new template has a much more effective code, which renders faster than the old one (with much smaller pre-expand size, it can be one third to one fourth of the pre-expand size of Geoboxes 1). To convert aa page from Geobox 1 to Geobox 2, there are two ways:
((Geobox Settlementbecomes
((Geobox|SettlementAlthough some field names have been changed in order to be unified, the old names are accepted too. For any settlement Geobox use ((Geobox|Settlement and set the settlement type (city, borough, town, village) in category field. Calling e.g. ((Geobox|City will work as well but it's not the recommended way (from technical reasons).
There are several unresolved issues at the Geobox talk page, please add your comments and of course any other ideas you might come with as well as bug reports. – Caroig (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Hike395. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I don't see the notability in having a List of peaks named Bear Mountain. Could you add some citations or anything that proves the encyclopedic value of this list? The can of worms is that there may be dozens more of these lists. Could you enlighten me as to the relevance herein? Thanks. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you weighed in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Currently used templates. I just noticed the change yesterday when I came up with several empty external links sections in articles I looked at. It seems we're in agreement that having the links at the bottom is a good thing. I'm not an expert on coordinates like those who are proposing the changes, but I agree with you that having the minimalist links is a service to our readers. Is there someplace we can take this to a larger venue? I dread having to clean up all this sections if this change sticks, and it seems only a few people are aware that this is happening. I'd hate to see this great tool go away. Katr67 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How do we get the geo project folks to move on this? Is an RFC the next step? It's not quite an "incident" yet. Katr67 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mount Pinatubo/new material, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author)) to the top of the page. Whpq 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I deleted Talk:Mount Pinatubo/new material by mistake, I've restored it. Resurgent insurgent 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The Sierra didn't become a mountain range until about 4-5 million years ago. Components such as the batholith at its core, and various associated volcanic mountains pre-dated the Sierra, but the range itself is very young. I thought the language referring to Sierra origins in the Jurassic was very unclear on this distinction. No Sierras in the Jurassic, but certainly a batholith was forming. (see discussion w/article) Tmangray 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 10:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! List of U.S. states by elevation has been selected to be a February WP:LOTD. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th. Note that since it finished in the top six will appear twice as a WP:LOTD during the month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an old one for you lol, but please could you add sections to the article Ecology of California? I just go random articles and just make stylistic suggestions if I know nothing about the subject. It would take me much longer than you lol hope you don't think this is too cheeky. Merkinsmum 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Hirofumi Nohara, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirofumi Nohara and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I changed elevations derived from NGS data. I did not intend to do that. If you can remember which articles are involved I do the leg work and get them changed back. I only became momentarily disenchanted with their data just before I wrote the comment on project told page I went back and worked on Mount Jefferson (Oregon) some more. I would be interested in your opinion. I really don't like the appearance of the coordinates in the infobox. --DRoll (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw your request at RFPP regarding Tundra and the vandalism issues. I wholeheartedly agree, and have placed the article under indefinite semi-protection. Thanks for the report, and, as always, happy editing! :) Jmlk17 05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw your picture [1] and it got me wondering. How can it be that high levels of CO2 can kill trees? I thought trees would benefit from high levels of CO2. The Mammoth Mountain and Lake Nyos article prove beyond doubt that high levels of CO2 kill plantlife... but why? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article White Mountains (Middle-earth), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)