User talk:Eoghanacht

Archived talk

My archived talk pages:

Archive 1 (2005 March 03 – 2005 December 16)

WikiProject Protected areas

Thanks. National parks and historic sites are yet another of my interests. I also added Canadian National Parks to my tasks, as they really lack any standard whatsoever. My maps will likely start out with the Canadian Rockies parks. Though, it's more arduous to compile the map data to make maps for Canada than the United States, due to spatial data policies, as well as the immense size of the parks. I'll also do other miscellaneous tasks and help with U.S. maps, which are easy to make. --Kmf164 18:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPS /US Parks

I noticed a comment about merging the NPS and US Parks article, from last April. It does not seem like you got far, I was going through the NPS article, and it needs some major imporvment, it does not explain anything really. Also, the US Parks article is well umm useless.

Interested in helping me on improving the NPS article? CuBiXcRaYfIsH 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking around today, instead of linking to US National Parks why not link those to National Parks that describes the national park concept more. The National park Service article will still get a total make-over, but I think that makes more sense

CuBiXcRaYfIsH 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Collins

Good work on the Floyd Collins article! — Kbh3^rd talk 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson."

Nonsense. A significant percentage of the American population clearly lives in Southern California. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to chime in?

Another editor has nominated Wilderness for article improvement drive. If you're interested...[1] hope you had a fine New Year.--MONGO 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Purge

Holy crap. I didn't create it, just used it. What happened? --FluteyFlakes88 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to dvrk template

Feel free to revert the changes. Sjschen 08:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Tennis Club

Hello, I noticed your edit to Cincinnati Tennis Club. I am not a tennis player, so I don't know exactly why you removed the Category:Real tennis venues. However, I am from the Cincinnati area, and lived near the Cincinnati Tennis Club, and even attended the Father-Son tournament. The courts are indeed outdoor courts. You can see this clearly on Placeopedia (see link). If outdoor courts constitute a "real tennis venue," please revert your edit. Thanks. Gilliamjf 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I appreciate your knowledgeable advice. Gilliamjf

Re: Welcome

Many thanks for the very kind and informative welcome to Wikipedia. I will try not to mess up any more entries! DeCaux 12:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats up!?

If you're bored, have a looksie at Shoshone National Forest...it is up for FA status and thanks to the efforts of several other editors, it has made significant improvements in the past several days. I'm NOT soliciting for a support vote, just thought you may have further helpful suggestions that may make the article even better...the comment page can be linked off the top of the talk page for the article if you wished to add a comment, or just contact me or leave a comment on the article discussion page...appreciate your assistance.--MONGO 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good...the template that is...oh and real life comes before Wikipedia always, so don't feel obligated. Shoshone has been promoted to featured article but you're always welcome to edit it if you see something that needs improvement of course. Keep up the good work!--MONGO 14:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civ War Battlefields

Sounds good, but it should differentiate betweeen battlefield and military parks and just battlefieds and sites that aren't parks. Go for it! I also tried to clean up the xxxState Civil War regiments categories by putting them into a category Civil War regiments by state but somebody undid it already despite someone else putting a tag not to take items out of the category. It's just as well, it should be American Civil War regiments by State anywayTHB 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it sounds good. Maybe there is no need to differentiate parks. WW II really doesn't have National Battlefields except Hawaii, but any type of geographic site could go there.

Did any states have both Union and Confederate regiments? I can see a category for armies, and one for regiments, but what about smaller bodies? like Guards, etc., parts of a regiment. And divisions? This is beyond my knowledge. THB 20:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the proposed change in category--I don't hold any particular expertise or feeling of ownership for the particular subject, so it sounds good to me. The people more heavily involved with Civil War articles should take the lead. THB 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change Template:Infobox protected area

Please feel free to use hectares. Removing any mention of hectares despite opposition is another quixotic quest of Bobblewik - who was recently temp-banned for mass changing to remove date linking despite having no consensus. Hectares are widely used in protected areas description even by international bodies. Since the early days of this project it has used hectares and sq. miles in the box and sq. km and sq. miles in the text. I will continue to revert Bobblewik's changes - as I have informed him. However, I work in many areas of Wikipedia - instead of spending all my time constabntly fiddling with units and always fall behind on this. Rmhermen 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not much concensus is accurate, but I only use hectares for smaller area measurements

See also, a move to change the catagories as you brought up on the protected area talk page:[2]--MONGO 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox protected area

This is not functioning properly for U.S. parks. The map is blank. Can you correct it. Rmhermen 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearest City" for Vicksburg NMP

The choice of Jackson as the "nearest city" for Vicksburg NMP is an offshoot of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Nearest city. Someone thought the field should show the nearest airport city, another thought the nearest place for supplies was sufficient.

I made a judgement call based on the question is: how familiar are English speakers worldwide about Vicksburg versus Jackson? Which is more recognizable? I thought Jackson was probably more recognizable (plus it has an airport), and therefore the "nearest city." It is even referenced in the NPS "plan your visit" page for Vicksburg NMP.[2] Obviously Vicksburg, Mississippi is closer, and if you think it is recognizable enough, fine. However, in that case I would simply delete the link in the "nearest city" field altogether (as I did for Touro Synagogue). — Eoghanacht talk 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I had not read that page, sorry. Maybe they should have listed "nearest airport" instead. I don't feel strongly about this, so edit away, but I will point out that the universe of people of who know Jackson MS is just about as small as those who know Vicksburg. :-) Hal Jespersen 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

also posted to my talk page:

I see. Of the articles that I have worked on within the scope of the protected areas project, the only ones I have watchlisted are those that I created and every full National Park (58 of them) listed. What I've been doing is just adding the infobox and if images exist, moving them one paragraph down and to the left of the text, that way, there is some text to intor the subject, the infobox and at least partially some image of the resource itslef. I suppose I could also add some public domain images to each article as much as possible. As noticed by the editor a couple spots above your recnt post on my discussion page, he prefers the image instead of the loc map in the template, and this is not the first time this has happened, so I'm not going to argue with him about it, instead I just encourage other editors to help us standardize these articles. I hope to have every National Monument completed with at least an infobox in a few days.--MONGO 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I need to do a bit more than just bulldoze my way into articles and slap an infobox on them...I kind of work like a robot when I get on one of these streaks and don't work well enough out of the box...I'll do more to locate images in commons or on the web and enhance text in articles to make them more complete as I go. Yes...green beer for sure!--MONGO 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the same thing and even had to hold back from doing a move of the entire page to coincide with the federal name of the fort, site, etc. so as not to upset military historians and other projects. I think I'll just finish all the National Monuments with the infobox and retrace back to each one and try to expand the text, links and add images to bring them all to a little higher standard...that may take some time. Additionally, why not add the info you have about standardizing to the Project template page, explaining why we might want to use that edit summary or at least state it on the discussion page as thjis is an excellent thought.--MONGO 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical places in New York

Thanks for changing the item in this category - I was just about to save the same edit when your message appeared. I'm concerned that the whole category duplicates the information in the master "List of RHP in New York", and it's cluttered with monotonous filenames. Do you think all the separate county lists (with mostly empty links) should be cleared out of this main category, to make room for the wiki articles that have content? (e.g. Grant's tomb, Theo. Roosevelt). The lists will remain a complete record, but the category will be reduced to the group of articles that exist on Wikipedia, which may be more useful to a general audience. The master list can always be a link at the top of the page. Or is it better to make new subcategories, as you suggested? I ask 'cause I'm going to split setions out of the Pennsylvania list soon which is another long document. —Dogears (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting, decendant of Eóganachta. All those files are {{large}}, but when they are split people start to edit the files. Someone did a nice job on List of Registered Historic Places in Texas by dividing it into 4 chunks (and I helped by adding the compact TOC). Do you think a shorter filename can be used?, like …Texas - "Counties A-C", which will be more compact in the Category pages, and a little easier to read. Enjoy. —Dogears (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition

to the Charles Niehaus article. I linked Orpheus, and want to mention that to get italics , as for Orpheus, we need to use two of these ' rather than one of these " . Carptrash 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat'l Register by state

Sounds like I screwed up about the Indy Speedway categorization. Please undo my edits and correct the problem. - Sorry!! Royalbroil 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cochinita pibil

I took the liberty of moving most of this over to the Cookbook, hope you don't mind---I know it must of taken quite a bit of time to transcribe the recepie from the DVD. However, I hope it won't be added to your "Hall of Shame," far from it. There is much to be said of this dish (history, reginal variations, et c.) and, hopefully it can be a real article someday. --VonWoland 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making puerco pibil has been on my to do list for quite a while. Care to save me the trouble? ;) --VonWoland 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. I've been picking through the image gallery at byways.org and uploading what I could to WP. I usually don't write articles just so I can get the picture, but I found it curious that there was no article for this monument (when I really expected pretty much all DC monuments to have something) and a quickie Google search found one reference, so it seemed an easy task to just write this. I've never been to the monument myself; I've only been to DC twice and the last time was for a grad school visit which left little time for sightseeing. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Monuments

Do you think that this will conflict with other lists we have? I see we have a list of National Forests and one of Wilderness areas and one of Fish and Wildlife areas, so all I was trying to do was create the list to go along with those. I'm open to the move if you think it's best though. Let me see whats up first.--MONGO 18:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can change the U.S. National Monuments to National Mounments of the United States and eliminate the list at the bottom, instead linking to the list I created. Or we can add my list into this article and cleanup some of the wording a bit between the two. I'll see what your thoughts are on this matter later on tonight though.--MONGO 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the old soldiers home...I saw that Clinton set it aside as a NM, but there is virtually nothing webbased I can find on it...I wonder if it is the same as the rest of the items on the list.--MONGO 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Carrollton Viaduct

Looks ok to me, though i did put a point of clairfication on the talk page. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carrollton Viaduct

Funny you should mention that B-) ... I noticed the article this morning and planned to put it in line for the Portal:Trains Did you know section after adding a couple more non-US entries. Slambo (Speak) 13:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAER permalink

If you search the LOC for the viaduct (it doesn't work if you search immediately for Carrollton Viaduct, only if you search for viaduct and then click on it), then view source, the following is in the HTML source:

Don't ask me why they made it so annoying to get a permalink. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think a section on bridges for first railroad in North America would be good? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct tennis venues

I wonder if you have any better information on Prince's club. It is reasonably important in tennis history (I remember my headmaster saying to me "I saw Covey lose to Etchebaster at Prince's"). I have trawled the net and found only confusion, but also references to a variety of books which would undoubtedly clear things up: perhaps you have one or other and can help. User:PJTraill 2006-04-09 14:28:49 (Sorry I originally forgot to sign!)

PJTraill 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (Re: your message in my talk: User talk:PJTraill#Prince's Club) I refer to the Prince's Club(s) in London, Knightsbridge, of particular interest because of the beginning of Pierre Etchebaster's reign. If there are/have been some in the States as well, it may call for disambiguation. I seem to remember seeing references to books which must have had clearer information than I cd find. Odd is that the allusions to "Old Prince's" continue, if I remember aright, after some sources suggest it was demolished. Maybe various clubs were regarded as "old" and "new" at different times. Perhaps someone else can help out with more information. As I live in Germany, I am rather out of touch with tennis in England, which limits my chances to gather information apart from the net.[reply]

Thomas Viaduct image

The image at Image:Thomas-viaduct-1.jpg seems to be missing today. The description page exists ([3]), but the image doesn't appear. Your edit summary on the upload mentions an error during the upload, so a re-upload seems to be in order. Slambo (Speak) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis club names

PJTraill 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (Re: your remarks in my talk: User talk:PJTraill#Tennis club names)[reply]

Moving Merton Street tennis court article: My gut feeling is against, though not all that strongly. Probably these reasons.

I think of the court and the club (in this case) as distinct entities. Wouldn't apply to a club with big grounds including courts belonging to the club. But I am fairly sure that the court belongs to the Merton College, Oxford, as seems to be shewn in http://www.merton.ox.ac.uk/generalinfo/images/merton800.jpg .
Something emotional, to do with having played there while up at Merton.
It looks more sensible in a list of venues, as it is a place and the club is not.

Checking real tennis organisations / starting articles: As I remarked under #Defunct tennis venues, I am rather out of touch with the scene. I am actually a member of Hampton Court club, but totally inactive for many years. Maybe I can contribute something, but I fear it is unlikely it will amount to much — sorry!

Renaming DC World War Memorial

Sounds good to me! In fact, I just went ahead and did the move myself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPS-stub

Just to let you know, I created and am now using {{NPS-stub}} for new National Park Service related stubs. I have also been sorting some {{US-gov-stub}} articles into the new stub. Nationalparks 07:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Jefferson Pier, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 12:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President Lincoln and Soldiers' Home National Monument

That should comnplete the National Monuments list then. Looks good...glad you were able to find an image to go with the article. I was kind of confused because I read that Clinton had created this as a NM but also that it was not one, but reading through I see the latter was incorrect. Maybe you'd be interested in having a lookie at Glacier National Park (US), as myself and User:Elkman have been doing a lot of work on it lately and related stubs to try and get it up to FA level...we are getting close, but a proof read is always helpful. Thanks for finishing the NM's...it's not likely we will see any more in the near future, so we can call them completed, at least up to the point of a stub with an image and the infobox.--MONGO 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised "Dubya" would do anything as far as conservation goes...good to see that then.--MONGO 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talbert

I didn't write the article except for adding the diabetic bit and I agree with you about the too many paragraphs. But saying that it needs to cite sources is ridiculous. Talbert was a *very* well-known tennis player for many years. You can find his record of victories in dozens of sources. Are you gonna go to the Mickey Mantle article and ask for sources for, say, the 54 home runs he hit in 1961? Same with Talbert's tennis record -- it's all over the place.... Hayford Peirce 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge infoboxes

I added an infobox to the Carrollton Viaduct article, since you asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges about it. As far as the nuances of the {{Infobox Bridge}} template, there aren't really any serious nuances, as far as I know. The most difficult part of it is collecting the information, and I think you've got that covered -- I didn't have to do any further research other than what was already in the article. If you don't know all of the values that go into the template, you can leave them blank or omit them entirely -- for example, there's no toll to cross a railroad bridge.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. I've done a couple articles myself on historic bridges (Seventh Street Improvement Arches and Intercity Bridge), and they've sort of piqued my interest. --Elkman - ^(talk) 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN category and African American Civil War Memorial

I took out the IUCN category from African American Civil War Memorial because the note on the page said it hadn't been categorized officially and because it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a category 5 (or any IUCN category) as it seems to lack the "interaction of people and nature over time". There's not anything that could be called "nature" there, and precious little "time" since it's barely a year and a half old. Until there's some official designation where's the harm in leaving this blank? --dm ^(talk) 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I suppose for those templates you mentioned I need the noinclude brackets above and below the added category? I'm not a very technically savy admin so I guess I need further explanation.--MONGO 19:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez...maybe I shouldn't be an admin...my technical skills are limited...much of this wiki stuff is simply a mystery as I simply copy and paste all templates I need...hardly woudl I have the skill to develop any...have a look now and see if I did it right.--MONGO 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]