User talk:Concertmusic/Archive 1

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 1

Archive 2

Rail transport in Germany task force

I see you are an ace translator of German railway articles - great stuff! If you haven't come across the rail transport in Germany task force - a sub-project of the WikiProject Trains - can I encourage you to visit it and add your name to the ~~hall of fame~~ (oooppps!) contributors. Also it would be good if you add new articles you've created to the What's new? section. Finally can I recommend an idea passed to me by a fellow Wikipedian which has saved me lots of grief... he suggested that when I was translating a big article in stages, I could do this in my Sandbox and then upload it in a "wunner" into its final destination page. That way no-one interferes during the build process, usually in a well-meaning way like proposing a speedy delete or something equally helpful! Anyway, thanks for your efforts and keep it up! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbindungsbahn article

Hi there, the English wiki is much more strict with inline citation as the German wiki, IMHO a benefit. The helppages WP:CITE, WP:OR, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Citation templates will answer your questions, hopefully. In a nutshell: every little claim must be cited, in the best case with a English language inline citation. But (there is always a 'but') I also cite German books, newspapers, etc. and I do inline references — in articles like Verbindungsbahn — only for figures and dates. E.g. "Stuttgart mayor Arnulf Klett, in a letter to the Deutsche Reichsbahn dated the 11th of July 1949, [...] was planned for the west of Stuttgart."{here a reference for this letter, date, and the claims of the section} and so on. The two inline citation in the German article will be a start, and you could change the {{unreferenced}} template to the {{refimprove}} template. In the very best case you have two, three or more different secondary sources for the whole article. But even here I use first sources like the DB website sometimes. An example is a short article like Veddel station, written by myself, with the use of some pdf documents as first sources from Hamburger Verkehrsverbund and a Deutsche Bahn website.

This is a reason, why simply translating a de:wiki article is questionable, and in some cases frown upon. I hope this was helpful, feel free to ask any questions. Greetings and happy editing :-) Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the article will be kept. With more inline citations, it's an article for a WP:DYK on the wikipedia main page, IMHO (Something like DYK, [...] that the tunnel of the Verbindungsbahn (Stuttgart) was the longest railway tunnel in Germany from 19xx until 19xx). But this need to be cited directly, sorry. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that de.wiki doesn't seem to be as fussy as en.wiki about references. Not sure why. This can be result in perfectly good articles attracting tags. I sometimes translate the "Literatur" section as "Source" if it is obvious that the article is based on that section.

On a separate note, I successfully contested the deletion of {{Infobox BS-Daten}} because {{Infobox rail line}} was messing up the formatting on our articles. So now all you need to do is copy it across from de.wiki 'as is' and add {| {{Railway line header}} above it. It automatically translates the field names and does all the formatting in the correct colours, merging it with the route diagram. You just need to translate the odd datum. {{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} for locomotive articles is also 'intelligent' and has more capability than it's en.wiki counterpart, including adding the header in the colours of the associated railway administration. Both save translation effort. One day someone will create a multi-lingual version as has happened on other templates! Meanwhile keep up your excellent work! It's great to have other folk on the task force now. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Donautalbahn

Hi, no go ahead please. My main focus is Bavaria, so I've full translated the Danube Valley Railway (Bavaria) article, but wanted to create the Danube Valley Railway (Baden-Württemberg) stub partly for completeness and partly to distinguish it from the Bavarian one and reduce confusion. I have created a number of stubs for railway lines in south and central Germany, mainly Baden-Württemberg, so that we get a basic structure which others can expand. I think once a stub is created it encourages others to contribute and the article builds. HTH. Happy Easter! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Danube Valley Railway (Baden-Württemberg)... Nice work! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Translations needed

Re Rack railway#Germany. Rübelandbahn, and others, need translation from German. Peter Horn 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Harzbahn, de:Harzbahn, de:Rübelandbahn etc. Peter Horn 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Concert, I got your note. There are also translations needed for Rack railway#Austria and Rack railway#Switzerland, not to mention Mountain railway#Austria, Mountain railway#Germany and Mountain railway#Switzerland (some railwats appear in both catagories). As time permits.... By the way, what is your mother tongue? Peter Horn 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Concert, I'm sort of in a similar boat. My English has long since been better than my Dutch. In your Babel, don't be shy to claim German as your mother tongue. Peter Horn 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, roadfan!

Hello, Concertmusic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Imzadi 1979 → 05:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome, Imzadi1979. As you noticed, I am trying to contribute by adding missing Google Map references, and adding missing articles, with a focus on Georgia State Routes. I am presently creating the missing artices as stubs, but noticed an effort on the WP:USRD US Roads project to reduce the numbers of stubs. I don't really have any additional info to add to these articles outside of what I am presently doing - but is the stub designation appropriate? Please advise - thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate. USRD assesses a little differently than many projects. For articles on individual highways, we have the "Big Three" sections: "Route description", "History" and then either "Major intersections", "Junction list" or "Exit list" as in appropriate. A Stub-Class article has either no sections separated out (essentially the article is all one bit lead), or it has only one of the Big Three. To be rated Start-Class, the article has to have a second, and all three to make C-Class. If you could add a junction list table, and write a route description, that would enable the articles to be rated as a Start.

Also, we use {{jct}} to create the [shield] + [link] constructions used in the infobox. I noticed that you've been doing it manually. Using the templates keeps things consistent, and you don't have to try to remember how all of the shield/marker graphics are named for each state, how to format the links, etc. As a note, we don't use "S.R." with the periods, but just "SR" in highway abbreviations. Ditto "U.S." vs. "US" for most states (I think Arkansas is an exception). The templates also know which states use a hyphen or a space (SR-1 vs. SR 1) and apply the non-breaking space as appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot, since these are articles about topics in the United States, you probably should be using "Month, DD, YYYY" formatting for the dates, not "DD Month YYYY". You have a good start though, so please don't get discouraged! Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for those pointers. As to the addition of junctions, I can add a junction table similar to what I am seeing in some of the articles where I have only added the Google Map reference - but I think I will try to get there only after I have added the missing references and articles.

Pointing out the junction template is very helpful - I am basically just replicating what I found in the first few articles I worked on. I think I will go back now and fix up that particular area for the routes between 400 and 178, which is where I am at the moment.

As to the date, I assume you mean the access date in the reference? If it is all the same to you, I will leave that as is - I actually prefer the European/military date format, and it is there again based on me copying, not on purpose. If that really should be changed, please advise.

Concertmusic (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the MOS does say to use the US-style date format for articles on US-related topics, and state routes in Georgia would qualify. The exception to that rule is for articles on the military. I standardize on the "normal" date format in my writing, but honestly as long as things are kept consistent, that's the key. However, if at a future date someone flips all of them based on the MOS, I should hope you won't revert. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Georgia State Route 92, the one link for the reference from GDOT might be dead, but the source is still accessible. There is an archived copy, so I restored the official length reference to the article, and reverted the length back in the infobox. Google Maps is notorious for being just a little off in lengths, which is honestly why we prefer not to use it for junction list numbers, ever. Yeah, sometimes we have no choice, but for Georgia, we do have official sources. GDOT has a resource called GeoTRAQS which can be used to obtain the mileposts for highways. SR 92 is on my list of articles to revise and update as part of a contest, but I've been busy pushing some Michigan articles through ACR and FAC. Anyways, there is a link to GeoTRAQS and a tutorial on how to use it listed at WP:USRD/GA#Resources. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue on changing that back - sorry about that, but the link provided does not work for me. Having said that, neither does that GeoTRAQS utility, at least not on the PC I use to do my Wikipedia editing. Unless there is a strong objection, I will continue to use the Google Maps distances, which will provide at least a guideline as to what the distances are between major junctions - which I would argue is better than nothing. On the couple of roads in Georgia (short ones, to be sure) where I have tested Google Maps against car milage, the milage was accurate to a tenth of a mile - just FYI.Concertmusic (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Google maps for the mileages is more of a last resort - when there's more precise info available, that's what we want to use. --Rs chen 7754 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify me previous point: On the PC that I use to make the edits I am currently undertaking, I cannot get the GeoTRAQS utility to work - it is a big-brother-controlled PC, and many 'normal' web sites do not work properly on it. It is the only choice I have to use, however. I can either keep going with what I am doing, which is to build major intersection tables with Google Maps data, or drop doing those tables altogether, and do more general updates, like I did in the 200-series of Georgia State Routes for your reference. In my personal opinion, having the intersections with Google data is better than not having them at all; also, this data is then readily available to anyone, while the GeoTRAQS data is obscure to the casual user - but if that is not the community party line, I can live with that - please advise.Concertmusic (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps' cartography is notoriously error-prone. (They have/had labeled the concurrency of "U.S. Route 2 in Idaho" and "U.S. Route 41 in Illinois" through part of Michigan, for example. Yahoo! and Bing maps are about the same in terms of general reliability.) I only use it as a source in concert with an official DOT map, and then only for the satellite view they provide. That way when I cite a paragraph of an RD section, it has the official MDOT paper map (free by mail request in addition to archive copies in libraries all over) for the imprimatur that the DOT's cartography of its own roads is accurate, and there is the citation for the satellite photography to back up the landscape descriptions.

Given that I've found distance errors between MDOT and Google, and I would suspect that MDOT knows exactly how long their roads are, I don't trust Google's lengths unless I have to. I'd rather you omitted the length data in tables than cite to Google given that we have a better source. As for the obscurity of the data, the Wikipedia standard is that someone can verify the source used, not that everyone can. If if were the latter, we would not allow citations to rare books housed in only a handful of libraries, or even any books that lack online e-book editions. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Morriswa (talk · contribs) is another Georgia editor. --Rs chen 7754 18:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 40

If you get a chance you might want to take a look at the above article. It's a good article, and is a good example to work off of. --Rs chen 7754 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow - that is a seriously good article indeed! I was going to pose this question in your post about 2013 goals - but I think this may be a better forum for it: I am fortunate at the moment to have some time on my hands at work, which I have used to make the updates you have seen to the Georgia State Route articles. I started this process by identifying some gaps in the 300-series routes, and working my way up the list of routes, so to speak. The edits I made changed a little with the knowledge I picked up along the way, as well as with the kind assistance provided by you and others involved in this project.

I have reached SR 1 doing the relatively minor edits I undertook, which mostly consisted of adding Google Map references where no length was present at all, or where the existing reference was a dead link. I added to the route description where necessary, and added county links to the Infoboxes, as well as county transport category links - among some other edits. I was now going to work my way back down the list, and make sure that we have a Major Intersection table in each article with all intersections with at least other SRs and higher highways. I was also going to create and add KML files to each article, using Google's KML creator, as well as flesh out the route descriptions some more where necessary.

If this project would be better served by me taking on other tasks, I am very open to suggestions. Here are some of my thoughts in that regard, and I would very much appreciate your input:

- if I stay in Georgia, I do what I stated as my next possible task, which would take articles to a Start quality - an example is Georgia State Route 3;

- if I stay in Georgia, I take your example above and attempt to improve an article to this extent, or close to it. I see this as taking some considerable time per article, and I have yet to get the GeoTRAQS software to work for me, which is a challenge;

- I could concentrate on creating KML files for all Georgia articles, and then move on to other states, becoming a one-man KML task force (if the Google KML is even considered good enough and approved; I may not be able to use a different software due to 'big brother' at work);

- I switch to a different state that needs help and create missing articles to at least Start quality, as per the Georgia articles I have done;

- I take on another task as suggested and discussed with you.

Your thoughts?

Thank you - Concertmusic (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in truth you can edit whatever you want; it doesn't have to be drudgery

That's the problem with Georgia... it's WP:USRD/A/S at the bottom of the leaderboard in terms of article quality. There's definitely a lot to be done here, more so than in other states. I'd say the best thing is to try and improve the quality on the Georgia articles; whether that be focusing all your time on one article to get it to GA, or spreading it out among multiple articles to make them better, that's up to you. There's advantages and disadvantages to both methods. Let us know if you have questions - WP:HWY/IRC, our chat channel, is always open. --Rs chen 7754 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well - at least that settles the issue of whether to stay in Georgia or go elsewhere - Georgia needs plenty of help. I will see how to best make the biggest impact and will request feedback to see if I am barking up the right tree! Thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

MOS:RJL

Hey, Concertmusic. An edit you made about a week ago to U.S. Route 1 in Georgia replaced the existing RJL with one that was converted to templates. Thank you for converting to templates and getting rid of mileposts that were not cited. However, there are other guidelines for creating RJLs that you may have unknowingly broken, such as putting more than one intersection in the same row. To learn more about these guidelines, I suggest you visit the Manual of Style, linked in the header. It contains all the general guidelines for creating RJLs. Thank you. –TC N7 JM 09:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that reading the MOS is not very enlightening - so let me just ask you about your comment: I assume you mean a row such as the one for Waycross on the above article. My reasoning for structuring the entry was that there are in fact 3 roads that come together in one spot, and I wanted to be sure to provide the direction info for each set of roads. If the fix for that is as easy as making 3 rows out of the one - great, and no problem. If this type of junction should be handled differently, please advise. I also see the other changes you have made to the Major Intersections area, and I will incorporate those in other articles I edit. Thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps has Waycross marked really badly. They have Branch US 1/US 23 marked as US 1/US 23, so I looked at Bing and Yahoo! Maps which both have it marked correctly (I'm assuming). I see the three intersections are each in different spots, albeit very close to each other, so I'd put them in three different rows. Branch US 1/US 23 wouldn't be bad to mark either; I'd put that in the same row as US 82/GA 520, since they're in the same spot.

As a side note, I must ask that you not mark directions as diagonals such as southwest or northeast. We typically mark directions as the same thing they're signed as on the road. –TC N7 JM 17:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

GeoTRAQS

I'm sorry if that came off harsh, but that wasn't my intent. I skimmed the original post and didn't read it all in detail because it was too long to make your point. I'll stand by my original point though from weeks ago: official sources are preferred. I will only use Google Maps in certain limited ways for an RD section. I will never use it for mileposts again. They just get too much wrong in the cartography. I had to tell Google to move H-58 (Michigan county highway) to follow its current, post-paving, route. The road was just paved from 2008 until 2010 and realigned in the process, smoothing out some curves. They had yet to update where the road was located in 2012. It was really apparent when looking at it on the hybrid satellite view when they had 2012 aerial photography, but the yellow line for the roadway was hundreds of feet off to the side showing the pre-2008 route.

To me this morning, after working all night on third shift, your post came across as the nth iteration of a "why can't I just use Google Maps for the MPs?" Fredddie (talk · contribs) contacted GDOT who said that GeoTRAQS is the correct source to use now over the older 444 reports. Sorry if a certain frustration level came out, but we've said that if you can't get that official source to work, just build the tables without mileposts, and we'll get the program figured out. It's sounding like something in the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT realm, even if you are hearing what we're saying. Imzadi 1979 → 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your post hit a very raw nerve, in that not reading something that someone has taken time to research and post is the epitome of bad behavior in my book. I think that I have sufficiently illustrated in my edits that I am wide open to accepting and incorporating constructive criticism and suggestions made by others with much more experience than me. I also do not think that I am stuck on a theme, but simply wanted to point out that the official source has a) changed significantly since last used successfully by VC, and b) is giving back bad data. Frankly, the fact that you are tired should have led you to save your post until a later time, as opposed to using this fact as an excuse.

I appreciate your sentiments in this post regardless - however, I will admit that you have soured my mood considerably as to my participation in this project. Maybe KMLs is something I can do that is not open to interpretation - we'll see. Concertmusic (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My best suggestion on these sorts of issues is a) ping the person that wrote any tutorials (the rest of the project probably has no better clue than they do) or b) ping the DOT that maintains the tool. Somehow they have to use it to figure out where to put the milemarkers along the road, so they should know how to derive the information.

Something to remember is that while USRD might be a unified project (save New York), we still work with the publications and online tools of FHWA, AASHTO, 50 state DOTs, various toll road authorities, plus any applicable city or county agencies. Most USRD editors only specialize in a single state. MDOT's resources are totally different than what WisDOT, INDOT or ODOT have, so while I can dig out just about anything I need for a Michigan article, I started from scratch on the Indiana section of U.S. Route 131 looking for source materials. No one really specializes in Georgia, unless you're taking that mantle for yourself. If you are, that comes with the responsibility to seek out sources, ask questions of GDOT and find those answers. USRD can't give you those answers except what is already posted on WP:USRD/GA. I know this because that's what I had to do to fill out the information on WP:USRD/MI.

We can always guide on you stuff like "you need to add X" to the article, or "you should rephrase Y like Z". We can't, unfortunately, hand out A, B, and C sources for a specific state and say, "write the article". I think we're lucky enough to have as many resources located as we do for a dozen core editors. Yes, only about a dozen people do most of USRD's work on a regular basis, and you can find most of them on the IRC channel on a nightly basis for live conversation. Imzadi 1979 → 17:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Something I should note, we do try to find resources for states outside of our normal areas of expertise. I don't have a lot to do with Wisconsin, but I did manage to pull together paper highway logs from two regions, and Excel spreadsheet logs for the other three. Until then, we had no logs at all since WisDOT doesn't really publish them to the public. Sometimes we need something across a border to finish a project in our state, or sometimes we get bored and try something new. Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Figuring out what is wrong with GeoTRAQS

OK, so I am not the only one who has noticed GeoTRAQS is...different...than it was 6 months ago. Can we retrace what you were trying to do and see if I can duplicate your results, or lack thereof? Some non-roads people may disagree, but junction lists are important. We don't consider an article "complete" when it has a route description, history, and a junction list for nothing! –Fredddie ™ 02:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's give it a shot. Here is a step-by-step description of how I used the GeoTRAQS app to give me the distances quoted in the post from yesterday on the project talk page:

Open GeoTRAQS at *[1]
Toggle to full screen by using the 8th icon from the left from the top icon menu bar.
Find SR 371. It is located in the southwestern corner of Forsyth County. In the app, locate the I-575 shield north of Atlanta, and double-click just to the right of the shield a few times to zoom in on the area around Alpharetta and Milton, and you should be able to find SR 371.
I went to a scale of somewhere between 1:10,000 and 1:20,000 to do my drawing, since there are a few curves in this SR.
Just to the right of the full screen toggle icon is an icon that looks like it has cross-hairs. If you select the down-arrow from that icon, you get a total of 3 choices - choose the middle icon to get the Draw tool, which is labelled "Measure Lengths".
To start drawing, click once with the left mouse button on your starting point, maybe at the intersection of SR 9 and SR 371. Then move your mouse, and a red line should appear. As you move up the route you are measuring, if you want to change to a new vector line segment due to a curve, you click your left mouse button just once again to start a new line segment.
I found it easiest to use the keyboard arrow keys to move the map up/down or left/right to see the next sections of the route you would like to draw.
Once you reach the point where you would like to stop your measurement and get the result, after you have clicked your mouse button to end that final segment, click the left mouse button once more without moving your mouse, and a results window will appear (possibly after a few seconds) with the measured distance.

I measured SR 371 four separate times on Sunday, and received the measurements of 7.28, 7.29, and 7.3 (twice). The latest version of the GDOT 444 series report from 2002 states the length of SR 371 to be 6.04 miles-FYI.

Good luck! Concertmusic (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I duplicated what you were doing ad got 7.31 miles. You should be able to select a section of highway and get the length data by segment, but it appears that layer is not present even though the GeoTRAQS application says it is. I am contacting GDOT. –Fredddie ™ 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that - let's get us a reliable tool, and we can make a real difference in the Georgia Roads area. I look forward to their response. Concertmusic (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I got a response today. Basically they said, "we know it's been broken; we think we fixed it." But, when I try to go there, it 404s. I imagine it'll be out all weekend at the very least. –Fredddie ™ 03:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again! With any luck they are still working on it. I just went there, and did not get the 404 - but saw the exact broken application we have had - no change so far. Let's keep our fingers crossed! Concertmusic (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

More on RJLs

Hey, Concertmusic. Thank you for expanding U.S. Route 319. You added an RJL to the article, which is great! Thanks! However, please capitalize the notes in the future. That is all. Thanks. –TC N7 JM 20:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the first letter in each note? No problem at all-will do as soon as you confirm. Concertmusic (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep! That's what I meant. Also, if you could figure out what's wrong with the Florida-Georgia state line row, that'd be cool, too. I can't seem to find a solution myself. –TC N7 JM 20:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - and I changed the bridge row-not sure that I fixed it, but it looks a little better. Concertmusic (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Er...one more comment. Semicolons should be used between notes, not commas. –TC N7 JM 20:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the commas - thank you. I also added the routes back to the state line change you made - I like the look your change achieves, but wanted to keep the info about the termini - see if you think it's okay. Concertmusic (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I didn't even know I accidentally deleted the concurrency termini. Thanks for adding them again. –TC N7 JM 20:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reassessed articles

Just bumped the two articles to C. The main thing missing is citations for the RD; you can just cite Google maps. I think I was a bit harsh though, and it probably is closer to B, so I thought I'd drop you a note. --Rs chen 7754 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Easily fixed - thank you for the feedback. FYI - it may be Jan. 7 before it gets done, as I am about to go offline until then. Happy New Year! Concertmusic (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing...

Hey. Great work on SR 136! Working on longer routes is something most editors dread. However, I have one comment: You're really lacking citations for the route description. Normally, we're supposed to add at least one citation per paragraph, but since your paragraphs are pretty long, I'd suggest more. This is crucial if you ever want to take any of your articles to GAN. Have a great day! –TC N7 JM 19:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. The route description is based upon Google and Bing maps, which I check with GeoTRAQS, the official GDOT roads software, and which is in turn checked by referencing the Georgia GIS shapefiles and geodatabases. I reference all of those once at the end of the entire section. What would you suggest? Concertmusic (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest repeating the citations at the end of each paragraph. –TC N7 JM 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed - thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:USRDCUP

Hello! As a member of WP:USRD, you may be interested to know that we are doing the USRD Cup contest again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. --Rs chen 7754 10:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have considered joining the contest. Having said that, I am doing updates to the Georgia State Routes in a certain order, so that I tackle routes in the same area together, since especially the History portions often inter-relate. This means that I tackle larger state routes as it makes sense from that perspective, without regard to trying to 'score' quick points. I think that I'd like to continue going down that route, as opposed to making 'easy' changes to short routes all over the place. If it makes sense for me to sign up under that framework, please let me know, and I will reconsider. Thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, any updates that you make to Georgia do have a 5x multiplier as Georgia is state #48 right now... I honestly doubt that I'll win, since I'm in grad school and am fairly busy, but I'm just doing it for the fun and we'll see what happens. --Rs chen 7754 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Concertmusic. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state)

Hi. I know that you were editing articles on roads in the state of Georgia earlier this year, and I was wondering if you might be up for a bit of a challenge. I don't totally understand the new format for pages like List of numbered highways in Georgia (U.S. state). However, I would like to see if someone like you could (and would be able to) reformat it appropriately. Thanks for your help. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?

Your Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#3. Arbs...

^A: should not be an admin

^B: should preferably not be an admin

^C: can be but need not be an admin

^D: should preferably be an admin

^E: must be or have been an admin

^F: must currently be an admin

Your Single-Letter Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why?

Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
Your Comments:

The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.

Your Wikipedia Username:
General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?

Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
Your Comments:

Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?

Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
Your Comments:

Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?

Your Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:

^A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions

^B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions

^C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language

^D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English

^E: working on policies/guidelines

^F: working on essays/helpdocs

^G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content

^H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content

^I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat

^J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL

^K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST

^L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help ^connect or informally

^M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally

^N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc

^O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments

Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.

Options: ^A: AE, ^B: arbCases, ^C: LTA, ^D: OTRS, ^E: AN,

continued: ^F: OS/REVDEL, ^G: CU/SPI, ^H: AN/I, ^I: pageprot, ^J: NAC,

continued: ^K: RfC, ^L: RM, ^M: DRN, ^N: EA, ^O: 3o,

continued: ^P: NPOVN, ^Q: BLPN, ^R: RSN, ^S: NORN, ^T: FTN,

continued: ^U: teahouse, ^V: helpdesk, ^W: AfC, ^X: NPP, ^Y: AfD,

continued: ^1: UAA, ^2: COIN, ^3: antiSpam, ^4: AIV, ^5: 3RR,

continued: ^6: CCI, ^7: NFCC, ^8: abusefilter, ^9: BAG, ^0: VPT,

continued: ^Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer

Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.

Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)

Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?

Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):

The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.

Your Wikipedia Username:
General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Soque River

No worries, happy to help. And a Happy New Year to you too! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Rudel review

Thanks for your thorough review. I will be addressing your comments shortly. I will ping you when I believe to have addressed your very good remarks. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, I believe to have addressed your suggestions. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks, yes reunion is a better fit. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Massacre

Thanks for reviewing the article. I will try to put in the majority of the work over the weekend, if possible. GAB^Hello! 01:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested in seeing this just for background on the article history itself. If you need to find any of the sources cited, I may be able to email some of them to you. GAB^Hello! 15:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw and read through this page the other day. I appreciate you pointing it out, however. I will also be in touch if I need access to some sources - thank you again. I may not get much further at all until next week as well, as work keeps interfering with the important stuff.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 21#Asking for advices

Concertmusic, I thought you gave 333-blue some excellent advice here, but I'm worried it wasn't taken. I just noticed a first subsequent GA review, of Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1, that passed today, barely three weeks later. It seems to me to be similar to the earlier reviews, but I would like an independent opinion. The article itself, at first glance, looks to be well written—there was a minor issue with uncited quotes in the lead, but it seems to be a not well-known aspect of WP:LEAD. (I did note it on a review you're doing now.) Can you do a quick check to see whether the review result is okay? I don't see any sign that 333-blue had a mentor or advisor for this review; if there had been one, the stability comment would surely have raised an eyebrow. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Concertmusic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Concertmusic. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Concertmusic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Concertmusic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

B737

I have made a proposal to restructure the B737 page at Talk:Boeing_737#Restructure_of_article. Your input is invited becasue you were once involved in the GA assessment. E x nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Will do - I'll practice right here! --Concertmusic (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aircraft stores configuration for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The article Aircraft stores configuration for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTFANSITE, WP:NOTMANUAL. This is not encyclopedic content and what is encyclopedic can be covered in the type's main article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am not a big fan of many of the restrictions enumerated under what is and is not encyclopedic content. I am a firm believer in having any and all knowledge out there readily accessible, which is what I like best about Wikipedia. Having said that, rules are rules. If you feel that this page does not fit, by all means to what you will. It was a really fun research project, resulted in me finding and reading massive amounts of information about aircraft weapons systems, and added to my knowledge - for no better reason than for knowledge's sake. I will not remove the PROD tag.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a thorough work, but it does not seem well suited to wikipedia. It does look like a manual, and a one-man work. But you should keep this work and publish it yourself, in a wordpress blog or in a medium.com post; or propose it to a specific website on military aircraft, perhaps even specialized magazines. The debate between meta:Inclusionism and meta:Deletionism is ongoing. Cheers! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC) maybe move this discussion to the article's talk page?

Merci Marc! I did realize even while I was writing and researching that there isn't a great fit - for example, there are no good categories that apply. Having said that, it does answer some detailed questions an enthusiast may have, such as "Can I attach a 2000 lbs bomb anywhere under the F/A-18, or is this placement limited, possibly due to weight restrictions on the wings?" Funny enough, the crowd that would possibly most appreciate this little article might be aircraft model makers, who argue to no end about what can go where when they build their VERY detailed and accurate models. Regardless, no worries - I have moved on and there are no hard feelings. I really do appreciate the links Inclusionism and Deletionism, and I may need to think about becoming a more vocal advocate of the former, as I do feel pretty strongly that no harm is done by being inclusive with knowledge. Thank you for our response!--Concertmusic (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season

Hallo, you participated in this discussion in its early stages. Therefore, I would take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season again. In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation and please feel free to delete this message from your page, if you so wish. Thanks again and kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Reginald Bachus

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Reginald Bachus. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)