User talk:Harpchad

Welcome!

Hello, Harpchad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Please don't add article directly into WikiProject categories. If you'd like to categorize them, add the category to the talk page instead. The WikiProject categories are needlessly self-referential and completely meaningless to any mirror sites of Wikipedia. — May. 26, '06 [06:53] <freak|talk>

Infobox city pt

Can you please be so kind as to leave the portuguese cities infobox alone. We made few simple templates to suite our needs and political organization, please do not substitute it for something more complicate and that does not reflect the way country is organized. Also, next time please ask before doing a major change.

Thank you

João Correia 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox City and Infobox U.S. City

Infobox city looks good so far. I think that we maybe ready to ask for a vote on the Template talk:Infobox City page. We should vote as to whether or not to make the Infobox U.S. city obselete or not (if that is even possible) and asked that editors start switching over the 150+ pages the Infobox city template. What do you think? Are there any more tweaks that may need to be done? —MJCdetroit 03:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The following was moved from my talk page for consistency): I think we're ready for a vote. I've already begun converting pages currently using the US version looking for potential issues. So far everthing fits well in the new version. harpchad 04:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However the US version needs to be made obselete otherwise someone will just keep using it. I'll see if there is a way to make it obselete until all pages can be switched, then delete it. —MJCdetroit 04:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen templates marked as depricated before, I'm not sure if that's accepted policy, guess I need to reviews the faq's. I expect some resistance from Boothy443, hopefully we've adressed most of h/h concern's.

Looks like we need to put

{{Tdeprecated|Infobox City}}

on the US City page and put

{{newinfobox|Infobox City}}

on the articles. newinfobox doesn't give an option to link to the new infobox, so perhaps we should also include

{{infoboxneeded|Infobox City}}

? What's our next step, do we request a vote on the WP:CITY discussion page, or do you think we already have a consensus?

I would include a commented out copy of the empty syntax along with the last tag and maybe some instructions like please transfer the data from the old infobox to the new infobox and uncomment the new infobox (when full) and delete the old. I think to go through the 150+ pages and paste that first before any transfering of data occurrs would be best. That way other editors of those pages who may not know that there is a newer infobox can contribute when it gets pasted on their page and it saves the few of us from doing all the work up front. Hopefully, that makes sense.

I like the template (except the metric units coming before the English [my POV], but it is an international/non-U.S centric template, so I'll live with it) and I say put it up for vote on the WP:city talk page. Also, let the folks at each template talk page know that there is a vote on the merge of the two templates on going at WP:City. My vote is do it, get it done! —MJCdetroit 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the cities using Infobox U.S.city now been tagged and just need to be converted? —MJCdetroit 16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least as of ~0300 UTC today they were. I went through all of them and verified that the tags we're showing. --harpchad 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll starting converting them over. I just finished Baton Rouge. I hit a bump in the Canadian City infobox so I'll need some help, but I figured that we can knock off the left over of the US one first. —MJCdetroit 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian City infobox

Just so we don't step on each others toes. I was going to see if it would be possible to merge the Canadian City infobox with Infobox city. There are some unique parameters in it. I'll work on it when I have the time. I'll keep you posted.—MJCdetroit 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I've been pursing a two of the smaller ones (Template:Infobox_City_NH and Template:Infobox_City-NoFlag). I don't think I'll tackle any other until the U.S. cleanup is over, I'll leave the Canada one to you. harpchad 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on it when I can. A field that I noticed and added (to my sandbox template) was Metro population density. See User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox3. —MJCdetroit 20:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the footnotes, how does this (User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox3) look?—MJCdetroit 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions:

Don't use hidden structures to hide rows, use Parser Functions instead.
Maybe it's my browser (at work right now, so using firefox/sparc) but the metro density label is a different font/size than the rest of the labels.

I also a little concerned that adding country specific fields could get overwhelming. Could we not just put the parliamentary and representative information in the leader section? --harpchad 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now. I swapped templates so that User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox3 is using the same code as the current Template:Infobox city with the addition of Metro density. I put the font at normal size for it, too. I also used the current leader section for parliamentary and represntative info. I echo your concern about country specific fields, however I fear without such fields editors would reject any attemps to standardize thier templates (in this case the Canadian city one) into the Infobox City template. I am not crazy about this field; just look at Toronto. If we can get away without it—that would be great. If Windsor was to have its template swapped tonight this is what it would look like (w/ metro density). —MJCdetroit 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that Toronto box is a mess. I think it needs to have most of that junk moved out of the infobox and into the article itself. I hope infobox city doesn't end up that bloated.

This looks pretty good. It's a definite improvement over the existing canadian infobox. I wish we had a better way to divide up the sections, the discussion about that at the template talk page seems to have stalled. I've played around with a few things but haven't been able to come up with anything better that what you've got. This mirrors the existing template pretty well so I don't think there'll be any argument against adopting it. --harpchad 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Toronto and Windsor with their new infoboxes. MJCdetroit 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsinite

YOu a wisconsinity nite? like me :) Tonetare 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infobox city test

A couple of the problems are likely my errors, but if you want to fix them go right ahead. Thanks! -- Rick Block (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the population note shading thing. Should there not be a BR between the metric and US city size? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better! I'm just trying to get it to one HTML table row per visible line. I notice you made the ifs for the optional rows include the |- that starts the next row. I don't think this is necessary (the table preprocessor seems to notice these and gets rid of the extras). It probably doesn't hurt either, but it seems a little odd (it's the start of the next row, not this one). I'll look at it a little more carefully (the mergedrow style is important to get right since it affects whether the border lines are present). I assume you're OK with changing to a bordered table style? The merged row thing doesn't seem to work unless the border-collapse attribute is set to collapse (which means the table is bordered). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the examples there seem to be implicit rows for subdivision type/name and established title/date. We should make these explicit rows as well (similar to the leader parameters I added to the version of Infobox County I'm working on). The point is a screen reader reads the cells from left to right, so grouping lines in different cells so that they visually align doesn't work for a screen reader. For example, your top O'Fallon example in the government section would be read as "Country state county, United States Missouri St Charles, First settled incorporated, 1856 September 25, 1912, Mayor, Donna Morrow". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the flag - I tried both template:border-notinline (which in the news uses) and template:border and both seem to screw up the alignment. There must a way to do this, but I figured it could wait. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just updated template:Infobox City to the new version you helped with. Turns out I won't be logged in this evening - if you could watch for breakage complaints and try to fix any issues anyone notices I'd appreciate it. I left a similar note for user:MJCdetroit. Hopefully, at least one of you will be around. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaneck, New Jersey

Thanks for cleaning up after me for Teaneck, New Jersey on the new city infobox. I tried my best, and appreciate filling in the blanks I didn't figure out on my own. I'll do my best to use this as a template for other New Jersey municipalities. Alansohn 19:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagerstown, Maryland

I've converted Hagerstown over to the new format, but some of the new entries in the infobox are a little confusing. I think I've gotten it to display the proper information, but if you could check my work I would appreciate it.

Also, the new citybox seems to have the same problem as the old citybox on resizing flags. Would it be possible to offer a flagsize variable?--Rosicrucian 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boothy443

Boothy443 is apparently making it a point to revert any and all edits that convert to the new citybox. (User's Contributions) He is not accepting talkpage comments, so I suspect it is a script. I noticed you had to revert his edits on the Hagerstown article once already, but I also had to do so once as well as he reverted me after I converted to the new citybox. Any suggestions on what to do about him? I don't want to be caught in the middle of an edit war, but I do have a personal interest in my hometown's article and want it to be compliant with the latest templates. --Rosicrucian 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion about it over on the WP:CITY talk page as well. We'd hoped to do a gradual conversion as we though that would be the least disruptive to the city articles. Unfortunately Boothy443 disagrees with the consensus. We've tried to engage him, we've invited him to participate in the conversion, I've made some changes to the template myself to try and address his concerns. It's difficult to have a conversation with him to determine exactly what his complains are, lately he's resorted to name calling. I asked for suggestions and we decided to nominate the old template for deletion here. We're trying to change as many pages as possible to make the deletion less disruptive, but it's difficult as several of the changes get reverted. I'm going to make a few more changes today and then I'll probably stop for a while and the the TfD vote run its course. harpchad 14:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know I'm not the only one who has noticed it. I'll keep an eye out. --Rosicrucian 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Irish Place

I just noticed this template isn't on the list on your userpage. Thought you might want to add it. —Jnk^[talk] 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added it, Thanks! --harpchad 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading, Pennsylvania image map

Hey Harp,
Can you look at Reading, Pennsylvania. The image map uses some type of pin coor (pin coords = left:190px; top:104px ) in order to put a dot for the location. How do you fix this? Besides that and the elevation from usgs.gov (server was down) it is ready to be swapped. —MJCdetroit 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pin coor thing is done in Template:Infobox U.S. City. It overlays the image of the dot (Image:Town in Ireland.png) on top of the other image at an absolute pixel position using CSS tricks. It wouldn't be hard to add this as an option to template:Infobox City. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town NH

Harp,

Add this to your list as well. Template:Infobox Town NH —MJCdetroit 17:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox_Town_NH —MJCdetroit 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized look for geographical infoboxes

Hi - I created a proposed guideline for geographical infoboxes I expect you might be interested in, please see Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back yet?

Hit me up when you are. —MJCdetroit 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fort Wayne Skyline.png

Hello Harpchad, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Fort Wayne Skyline.png) was found at the following location: User:Harpchad/ofallon. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 12:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MO Bluebook.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MO Bluebook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back!

Hi - Noticed you're back. Welcome back. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! Welcome back. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30pm in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]