User talk:Cacophony/Archive1

This is an archive of previous discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, you can do so on my main talk page.

Hello Cacophony/Archive1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meelar (talk • contribs) 08:44, August 20, 2004

A belated welcome to Wikipedia! We can always use another contributor who specializes in topics about Oregon. -- llywrch 20:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving articles[edit]

Hi there, you moved Fremont Bridge to Fremont Bridge (Seattle, Washington), but it appears you did this simply by cutting and pasting the text of the article to the new article. By doing this, you've sacrificed the entire edit history for the article. While this is not a tragedy for such a small article, it can be dire for large articles with a long edit history. For future reference, if you move articles again, use the "Move this page" link. Using this method will preserve the history for the article as well as move the associated talk page. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Lukobe 03:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) P.S. I subsequently created a disambiguation page at Fremont Bridge, at which you left the Seattle text, and changed Fremont Bridge (Seattle, Washington) to Fremont Bridge (Seattle), since there's only one Seattle.

Peer review[edit]

Hi, you have made a listing at WP:PR. Other editors have made comments that could use your help in resolving. The new peer review policy is to remove listings with suggestions that have not been responded to after a reasonable time. This is to make room for better discussions and more collaborative editing. Thank you. - Taxman 23:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Tim Hardin[edit]

I was very glad to see that we finally got an article on Tim Hardin. (If you came in through Slashdot, this is some measure of payback for all the nuisances we've had with Slashdotters inserting errors in articles just to see how long they stay there.) In answer to the questions you raised on the Talk page, I'd say that you should add basic information about his wife and children if you have it, but we don't need to know a lot of detail about them except to the extent it relates to his work. As for the album listing, I think the best approach is the one you've followed of narrating the biography without mentioning every album along the way. If you want to, you could do as some articles on musicians do and add a "Discography" section that would list everything with just album title and year of release. JamesMLane 21:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

creating categories[edit]

The easiest way to create a category is to put an article in it. Then you will get a red (or otherwise non-functional) link from that article. If you click the link, you will be taken straight to the page to edit that category. (You can also enter the category name into the address bar of your web browser, perhaps replacing the name of another category to make sure you get it right.)

The category only sort of exists when it just has articles in it. It doesn't really exist until you edit the category page and add something to it, like a description and a category of its own.

If you're working on categories for things like cities and states in the U.S., the thing to do is to look at the other states and see how the categorization looks there. Ideally, no category should be an "orphan"—every category should belong to one, possibly more, other categories.

Does that help? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

January 15 Seattle meetup[edit]

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

OMSI[edit]

Hi: I noticed your contribution of the OMSI picutre. Very nice! Tygar 03:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Cacophony 03:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is an archive of previous discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, you can do so on my main talk page.

Oregon Collaboration Project[edit]

Hi, Perhaps sometime we could gather some other people willing to contribute to Oregon related articles, and start up an Oregon collaboration project? Tygar 07:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

New BNSF lift bridge image[edit]

Greetings. Nice image and a vast improvement over the earlier version. Could you send me the full image via e-mail? (E-mail me via my home page and I will send you an address - WP mail does not allow attachments.) I will then de-rotate it in Photoshop to get the horizon level and re-clip it for the two images. Thanks, Leonard G. 16:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't find an email address, but I will fix that. I needed to resize the BNSF photo anyway. Good job on the Bridge article! Cacophony 05:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The images are now much improved, thanks. I also used your user page Dalles Bridge image in the Cantilever bridge article. To send e-mail from either the user or user talk page use the toolbox below the search box, item "E-mail this user" Leonard G. 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem-o. Thanks for the tip on the email. Keep up the good work! Cacophony 17:44, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Eastbank Esplanade image?[edit]

You uploaded Image:EastbankEsplanade.jpg, but you didn't put a copyright status. I kind of assumed you took the picture yourself, but there isn't a copyright status listed. Sarge Baldy 09:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure how that happened. I updated the source info and added a GFDL tag. Thanks! Cacophony 17:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Bridge Categorization[edit]

Many bridges are beset with many different views on how they should be categorized. The issue of category duplications has been discussed for many months at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. I am hoping that you can take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Updating_the_section_on_category_duplications. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link and it is somewhat difficult to see the forrest for the trees. I'll comment on the Talk:Cats page, but it dosen't look like anything near a consensus has been determined. I'll go through the archives for more direction but my goal is to get rid of categories that have 1-5 article in them. I really think that each bridge should belong to Cat:<bridge type (Cat:Suspension bridges), Cat:<bridge location by state> (Cat:Bridges in Oregon), and if applicable Cat:<Toll roads by state> (Cat:Toll roads in Oregon). From my experience those seem like the most meaningful categories (from the standpoint of the category page itself, it makes the articles have a lot of categories). Cacophony 17:49, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject bridges[edit]

Hi again. You might want to take a look at San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge - it is now a featured article after considerable work by myself and Samuel Wantman. We intend to use this as a prototype for other specific bridge articles (this uses a modified taxobox template that includes a regional map).

BTW, I have self nominated for Administrator status[1] and your support would be especially welcome. - Leonard G. 15:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorization[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Oregon page as living in or being associated with Oregon. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for instructions. Rmky87 15:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note[edit]

Hi Cacophony,

Thanks for your note, and your contributions of the AWESOME bridge pictures! I've added myself into the Category:Wikipedians in Oregon. Thanks for suggesting that. I'll send a note to Alphalife and have him list there as well.. Ajbenj 03:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thanks[edit]

Hi, Got your note, and am following your advice. --EngineerScotty 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Project[edit]

I just signed up. LeonardG and I worked on getting the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to FA quality with the hope that it would be a model for Bridge articles. I've been working on List of largest suspension bridges with the hope that it would be a model for bridge lists. Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of these articles at the bridge project page and perfect them as models. -- Samuel Wantman 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I received your note. Please furnish the link for the project page and I will discuss there. Thanks, Leonard G. 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoan Bridge[edit]

Hi.. I noticed your tweek to the Hoan Bridge article and thought I'd pick your brain, since you seem to be much more knowledgeable on the subject... most media and engineer references I've seen refer to it as a long-span bridge, and it even won the "Long Span Bridge Award" from the American Institute of Steel Construction. The photo only shows a distinct section of it which spans the harbor, but I can see how it would be categorized as a tied-arch bridge. Can it be both, or is the term long-span just a generic description? Thanks! 72.131.44.247 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term long-span only refers to its length and not necessarily what type of construction/structure is used. Most suspension bridges and cantilever bridges are long-span bridges. Cacophony 00:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Narrows Bridge[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if you have a picture of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the current construction. The only picture at the article is one of the collapse. -- Samuel Wantman 10:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a picture, but next time I'm in that neck of the woods, I'll stop by and snap one. Cacophony 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over-categorizing[edit]

Hi. You reverted my changes to Sunshine Skyway Bridge saying it should be in both Category:Toll bridges in Florida and Category:Bridges in Florida. By that logic, you should also include it in Category:Toll bridges (which is also underpopulated) and Category:Toll roads in Florida. Saying the category is underpopulated isn't a reason to list it in multiple places — that's a reason to get rid of the category and merge it into its parent.

Including in a category and that category's parent goes against the policy in Wikipedia:Categorization. Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating subcategories: A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but 'Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom' might be a good place for her. We know that all Queens of the United Kingdom qualify as Famous Britons and as Royalty, and all of those folks qualify as People Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories: An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. wknight94 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would prefer if this conversation took place on the Wikiproject talk page related to Bridge Categorization. As you can see above, I am very familiar with the Wikipedia pages related to Categorization and have commented on such talk pages. I somewhat agree with your reasoning, but when you create categories with one or two articles, it makes the categorization meaningless. It would be like your above example, if you were to create a category called Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom named Elizabeth. Some categories are just too specific to have any value. With your scheme things are broken up too much. This has become particularly troublsome for the east coast bridges. Where does it end, Category:Toll suspension bridges in Broward County, Florida. Part of Wikiproject:Bridges is going to be fixing this problem so that categorization of the east coast bridges has meaning and value. Cacophony 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy all this to the place you suggested — feel free to delete this... :) wknight94 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to work out an agreement with User:SPUI about toll bridges. He's the person who keeps taking the NYC toll bridges out of the NYC bridges category. I'd appreciate if you commented on his user page, and also on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conde McCullough[edit]

Hi Cacophony, this article was tagged by User:Kwh on 25 July as a copyvio, stated reason was that it was too similiar to the asce bio. I resolved the copyvio by deleting the article, but kept some of the later edits, which I credited in the edit summary, and create a new article at Conde McCullough/Temp, which then became the article. In looking back at the deleted history I see that the original edit was a paraphrasing of the asce article, but I wouldn't consider it a copyright violation. I think I made a mistake in deleting it while resolving the listings at WP:CP. My apologies. I've undeleted the history, feel free to restore the old article. --Duk 21:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings[edit]

Hi, I haven't seen you comment on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion page regarding this. I paraphrased what I thought you meant in my comment because I felt it was important that dissenting voices be heard especially yours and other Bridge Project members. I hope you'll consider commenting (whether you've changed your mind or not!!!) even though I do think of the three navigation/listing templates that some of the NYC bridges have now, this is the one to go... Thanks! (watching here if you want to reply here) ++Lar 14:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cat people[edit]

Yes, I totally agree that those people should be in categories more specific than category people. I'm thrilled that you're moving them. My thinking was that it's better to have them in cat people then in uncat. People interested in people categorization (like yourself, perhaps?) will be more likely to find them in cat people than in uncat. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to that relevant guideline, talk, or project pages so I may learn how to be more effective. peace, Tedernst | talk 01:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]