User talk:Omnedon/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Service awards proposal

Master Editor Hello, Omnedon/2010! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Galesburg City Township

Sorry, I was under the misunderstanding that it was what Ohio calls a paper township, not an active governmental unit. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Burnett, Indiana

The article you wrote on Burnett, Indiana, said "Burnett was founded by Stephen Grover Burnett and his wife Hanna Creal Burnett in approximately 1835." Where did you get that information? Hanna died in 1829. (Stephen and Hanna are my GGGrandparents.) Paulburnett (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While I did create the article initially based on geographical data, I didn't add that sentence; if you check the history of the article, you'll see this was done by Piperpilot12f, who seems to have made just this one edit back in December 2008. Omnedon (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Piperpilot is my cousin (who is also a descendent of Stephen and Hanna) - I'll have to deal with this offline. <grin> Paulburnett (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Tedieville, Missouri

i don't even know if this is a real place i just found it on google maps and made and page. !1 ;) :0 #-] nextext —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.74.195.125 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G6 Images

'Local description page for image on Commons' - Would have used F2 but that's been contested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand why people oppose the use of F2; these are clearly F2-eligible. I've been busy deleting the file pages that Sfan00 IMG is tagging. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bee Ridge, Indiana / Location Maps

I was plopping the location maps on a few towns to try them out and on Bee Ridge, Indiana, the red dot falls clearly outside of the county lines on the map. The GNIS says the town is in Clay County, so I don't know what's off, the coordinates of the map or the GNIS data? Thought I'd bring it to your attention. Great work on the maps. Sweet kate (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, not just Bee Ridge, also Coalmont, Indiana, and others. I think your math is just a little bit off? :) Sweet kate (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know; I've fixed it. Does it look right to you? I know now what the issue is and will fix my code; the fact that the county is tall and narrow threw it a curveball. :-) Omnedon (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I believe my PHP code is now producing the correct edge coordinates regardless of the shape of the county. Omnedon (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks right to me! Woo hoo! Sweet kate (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Warren County, Indiana

I think you are right to withdraw this from FAC for the moment. I would advise peer review. I wasn't suggesting that you ought to follow the GA route before returning to FAC; a decent PR with good feedback ought to be enough. I'll certainly look at it again there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll chalk this up to inexperience with the process, and I appreciate your guidance; certainly I don't want to waste anyone's time. We'll work on the article some more and then go through PR later. Omnedon (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Champaign, Illinois

Hello! I was looking through Category:Maps of Champaign County, Illinois at Commons, and I noticed that there was no map for Champaign, Illinois. Could you create a map for use in that article, if you think it would be useful, to supercede File:City of Champaign Township Champaign.PNG (not currently in use)? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I will check that out. Omnedon (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please also do the same for China Township, Lee County, Illinois (it is missing from Category:Maps of Lee County, Illinois on the Commons)? Also, I noticed that File:Map highlighting Deerfield Township, Lake County, Illinois.svg exists for Deerfield, Illinois, but no portion of the map is highlighted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that China Grove Township was renamed to Franklin Grove Township a few years ago (see talk). I do now have a map of it, which I'll upload soon. I also have the "City of Champaign Township" map ready. Omnedon (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks for updating the map in China Township, Lee County, Illinois.
Regarding File:Map highlighting Deerfield Township, Lake County, Illinois.svg ... on closer inspection, I'm not sure whether it is actually for Deerfield, Illinois. There is a West Deerfield Township, for which a map (here) already exists, but no article on a "Deerfield Township". -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The Deerfield Township map appears to be extraneous and I've nominated it for speedy deletion. The City of Champaign Township map is now available. Omnedon (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for catching these anomalies; I like to get those resolved. Occasionally, data from the USGS and the census don't agree, and my scripts can't resolve it automatically -- such as in the case of China Township -- and some manual intervention is required to make things come out correctly. Omnedon (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If I find any other anomalies while checking the remaining subcategories of Category:Illinois maps, I'll be sure to let you know. :)
Thanks again for handling these issues so promptly and effectively. Cheers! -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps of Illinois townships

As a follow-up to the above section:

Would you be willing to create these 25 or 26 maps (depending on the source, Ogle County has either 24 townships or 25 townships)? I realize that it is substantially more work than with my previous requests. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That will be no problem. City of Bloomington Township is available now; the Ogle County maps will be done shortly. Omnedon (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, the Ogle County maps are now online. Do they look OK to you? Omnedon (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they look great—high-resolution and more content! I will include the low-resolution .JPG files on Wikipedia in my next WP:FFD group nomination, and I already have requested deletion of the equally low-resolution .PNG files on Commons. Thank you again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem -- I enjoy mapping. As I recall, some years ago Ogle County was the testing-ground for some new maps that a couple of other editors designed to replace the older black-and-white maps, using a color scheme already employed with some other Wikipedia maps; I ended up taking the concept slightly further and going with SVGs, but I didn't want to replace the Ogle County maps precipitately, and I guess I never got back to it. Thanks for catching that. Thanks also for a positive experience; too often there is conflict in Wikipedia interactions, so some real collaboration is refreshing. Omnedon (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Likewise. :) It's been a pleasure, really, to collaborate with you, and you have made what would otherwise have been a tiring and marginally useful cleanup task (checking and nominating for deletion c. 1,100 unused files) much more productive. Would you, by the way, please have a look at Closeapple's comment here concerning the maps for Peoria County and Tazewell County? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Two more:

-- Black Falcon (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The O'Fallon Township map is now online. I never did create maps of precincts, but it should be possible to do so. I'll see if the census TIGER data includes those boundaries. Omnedon (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I added the PNG version to the group nomination. By the way, are you using an updated data source? I noticed that the new map is crisper (not sure if that's the right word) and contains more detail than the others (compare old and new). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The data comes from several sources, but it's all of the same type; the primary source is the census, since that data defines the state, township, county, township and city boundaries. The difference in appearance is mostly due to the evolution of my code that generates the maps from the data, and also from tweaks to line width, opacity, color, and the like. Those are things that one could play with endlessly trying to find the perfect combination; but I felt that the newer version was a bit of an improvement, and I'm glad to hear some confirmation of that. Omnedon (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dement Twp

Thanks for this, but you know, your edit summary makes it seem like I should have already known that. Five months that has been tagged as needing a source, and you can't expect someone to look through all of an article's sources to see if one particular fact is present in a source--that's the reason we have numbered notes. I mean, why not just list all the sources at the end of every article and let the reader wade through the pages looking for support of questionable facts? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was simply stating a fact; the information you removed was supported by an existing link in the article. I wasn't implying anything. However, now that you mention it -- I'm all in favor of inline references and was glad to provide this one, but the article in question is a stub with three sentences and four external links, not a 10,000-word article with 70 general references. Back in June, you apparently went to the trouble of analyzing the shapes of the two townships and concluded that the statement was unlikely. In my opinion it would not have required much more effort to check those four links to see if supporting information was already available (perhaps providing an inline reference if you wished) rather than tagging the statement and then coming back later and removing it. In any case, it's resolved now. Omnedon (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right--I could have checked the sources. The point of inlines is that it renders this unnecessary. And no "analysis" of the township shapes was necessary; they were statutorily designated even before the state's admission to the Union to be six miles square. Obvious exceptions were made for townships along the county boundaries and where rivers made convenient natural boundaries. But the odds of a township being created exactly 12 miles by 6 miles, then later being divided in half seem to me to be a bit low, and no pondering or investigating the matter was necessary to prompt the question. In fact, I still doubt the veracity of the statement, but I support leaving it in there because there is a source, a good source, supporting it. I just doubt its accuracy, because it runs counter to what I know about townships. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that I've never wasted more time on a more insignificant subject, and I apologize for forcing you to do the same. You do great work, and do not allow my gruff manner to hide the fact that I recognize that fact.HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate that. I don't know about Ogle County, but in other counties in Indiana and Illinois, it was common for relatively few townships to be defined at first, then for more townships to be defined in the following decades. In this case, I agree it seems unusual; but in the county histories I've looked at, the shapes and sizes of townships were influenced by various political factors, most of which wouldn't be at all obvious today. While writing this, I found an 1878 Ogle County history at archive.org, and it does state on page 331 that Dement was formed from Flagg, though it gives the date as September 11, 1855; but on page 329 it states that Flagg originally comprised simply of "all of Township 40, range 1 east of the third principle meridian", while Scott, Monroe, White Rock and Lynnville (the other four in that section of the county) are similarly described but were not subdivided later. So, you may in fact have found an anomaly, but it appears to be of long standing. Some of the townships, such as Byron, were larger than the standard size when they were formed; but this is specified in the history book, whereas nothing like that is stated about Flagg. Naturally it's a pretty trivial issue, but I do find it interesting to look at these old histories, and have been pleased to find so many of them available at archive.org in scanned form. If I find out any further sources on this I'll cite them. Omnedon (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Trivia ahoy! Here's another Illinois history from 1909 that states that Flagg Township originally consisted of two survey townships (ranges 1 and 2 east of the third principle meridian). The reason is not given, but it does seem to make sense under the circumstances, although the 1878 history didn't mention it. Omnedon (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I must say, you've turned on its head everything that I thought I knew about townships; indeed, you've taught me more about the townships of The Great State than I realized there was to know. And your resourcefulness is very impressive as well. Thanks for being so patient with me, and again, keep up the great work. HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

What on earth justifies this? HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on past Wikipedia experiences, I felt that the discussion above would often have turned bitter, but you reversed that; I was prepared to repel boarders based on your original comment, whereas instead you ended on a positive note. It's a bit difficult to explain, but early yesterday morning in preparing for work I was left with a good feeling from the way the discussion was going, and I wanted to acknowledge my perception that despite what you self-describe as a gruff manner, you're (as the barnstar states) basically a stand-up guy, and your latest comment only supports that. I'm sorry if it seems extravagant or irrational, but real-life issues have made things stressful of late, and although this issue was trivial, nevertheless it's turned out to be a good experience for me, and I thank you for it. That's all. Omnedon (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, now I understand, and I'm genuinely gratified. Fortunately the internet not only joins us, but keeps us at arms' length, or else I'd hug you and get a really concerned look from my wife. Happy editing, friend! HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

County vs. State Push-pin maps

Question: Is the replacement of state maps with county maps, as you have been doing, your idea or a standard practice? I can see pros and cons to each. The county maps are clearly more accurate, given their scale. But few people outside of Illinois--indeed, few people outside of northern Illinois--know where Ogle County is at all. For the majority of people, it would seem to me, the state "push-pin" map would provide more visual context in which to locate a town. Might it be possible to include both? Of course, I imagine that this has already been discussed, and if it has, just point me to the discussion to save yourself time. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been done in some other counties by some other editors; it provides more detailed context for the location of a settlement, and the maps I add include highways which helps even further. It's especially helpful with smaller settlements. It's fairly easy to determine the location of the county in which a settlement is located, but if you wish to include the state map that locates the county, see Baileyville, Illinois where I experimented with providing both. Omnedon (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have experimented on Byron, Illinois and found that the Illinois and Ogle County pushpin maps can both be provided. So the question becomes -- which is a better complement to the Ogle County pushpin map, the Illinois pushpin map or the Illinois map that highlights Ogle County... Having looked at both, I think the Illinois pushpin map may be best largely because the color schemes of the two maps will match, and the state pushpin map does show county borders. Thoughts? Omnedon (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not an immediately obvious choice; both have their appeal. The Baileyville format appeals to me logically (highlighting very specificaly the section that the other map will show close up), but the Byron format is more aesthetically pleasing, for both the color and the size. I'm leaning 60/40 in favor of Byron's layout, but I'll have no problem if you or others prefer Baileyville's. I mean, you're the one doing the work, so in my book, your opinion counts for more than anyone else's. I'll appreciate it, regardless of which you choose. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Warren County, Indiana review

Sure. I'll be happy to review it. It might take me a day or two to find the time. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There's no hurry; I appreciate your willingness to do this. Omnedon (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The reviews are semi-formal in that nobody officially declares them to be over, and other editors might pop in at any time with comments. You can either do nothing, and a bot will eventually archive the review, or you can archive it yourself if you want to nominate the article at GAN or FAC, for example. I have several other promises to keep before I can get back to Warren County, but I'll try to do that. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I had gotten the feeling that the process was somewhat informal. I'll wait for a while and see what happens, and once we have expanded the article some more, I'll take the next step. I very much appreciate your input. Omnedon (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omnedon/2010&oldid=1139472661"