User talk:Jmchuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jmchuff, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Portland bridges 2 Template argument 3 Harbor Drive 4 "Fixed link" 5 WikiProject Bridges 6 Recent Changes Camp in Portland 7 Transportation in NYC 8 Oregon State Hospital 9 [citation needed] tag

[edit] Portland bridges

Thanks for the help with the Portland bridge articles. Would you like to include yourself in Category:Wikipedians in Oregon? Cacophony 08:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, If you would like a copy of the National Bridge Inventory Data for the bridges in Oregon, let me know. You can send me an email through my user page & toolbox on the bottom left, or I could put it on a webpage. The data comes in a 400 character string and I spent a while decoding and labeling everything. It came out to about a 3 MB excel file. Cacophony 19:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll think about it. For now, I am working on adding info boxes to the bridge pages and then replacing Bridges in Portland, Oregon with lists on the river pages and a nav box for Portland bridges. One question: should "carries" be used for the highway/street/railroad co. or the amount of lanes/tracks? Since were talking about the structure, it seems like maybe it should be the latter. Also, I converted San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge to use the Template:Bridge. Re: your first comment: I'm not done yet! And now that I have created a user page, I have cat'ed myself.

I was actually going to work on a new template for the bridges. I'm not really satisfied with the one being used now. I think that carries should refer to the roadway it carries becuase that is fairly important. I am pretty sure that Template:Bridge was derrived from the National Bridge Inventory Data, which refers to this field as "Facility Carried" and denotes the Highway number/Road name. But how many lanes, vehicle only/railroad/pedestrian is notable as well. I don't really think that vertical clearanace (NBI: "min. vertical clearance over roadway") isn't noteworthy enough to merit a place in the infobox (and a good deal of the time is going to be "unlimited" anyway). I think that Rivermile (distace in river miles, from the mouth of the river) should also be included. Cacophony 00:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean I don't think that...is noteworthy enough? Overall, re-doing Template:Bridge would be a good idea, including the style. I changed the style to the one used by Template:Infobox_BridgeSpecificWithMap after a complaint. And is the NBI ID really needed? As you've found out, its not exactly the nicest thing there is.

[edit] Template argument

You seem to feel that the purpose of a template in not to do what I've done in my "pop song" templates. I wish you would answer a few questions:

1. What, pray tell, is the purpose of having templates? After all, they could all be replaced by copy-and-paste.
2. What in your opinion is a valid way to use them?
3. How does my usage differ from that?

BRG 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. I believe that templates should be used for things that there is a standard for, like the spoiler warning. Things that should never (need to?) be edited on a per-article basis and look the same on all pages its used. I have not seen any standard for article intos (though this may not be a bad idea) and think that they should be easily editable. --Jason McHuff 18:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harbor Drive

Good question about Harbor Drive. As far as I can tell, there weren't any signals on it; however I have no personal recollection (being born in 1971). The signals that currently exist near Riverplace didn't exist, as Riverplace didn't exist (one of the linked-to pictures shows a loop ramp looping onto Harbor Drive northbound from Market Street, occupying the real estate that now is occupied by the apartments/condos).

I do remember that as far as the late 80s, many AAA roadmaps still indicated Interstate Avenue, the Steel Bridge, and Harbor/Front avenues as a freeway. (Canyon Road between the Sunset Highway and Goose Hollow was also indicated as such for quite a while...)

If you want to rename Harbor Drive to be more Portland-specific, go ahead. I thought about that myself, and then decided to be a lazy typist.  :)

--EngineerScotty 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the pictures from the auditor's office, there appears to be vehicles parked along the Drive. I think that this issue has also been brought up in Usenet, so check the Google Groups archives. Also, take a look at the Naito bridge over I-405. It's much wider than it needs to be today. And if you look to the north of it, you can see where the roadway went down the hill to Harbor Drive. --Jason McHuff 20:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I do remember some fragments of it from my childhood...but the memories are quite hazy. A quick question for you: Are you, by any chance, the Jason that runs the oroads site? (A site I've linked to quite a bit for reference).

Also, I created new pages for Eugene: Roosevelt Freeway and West Eugene Parkway... you might read 'em and see if you can spot any errors or omissions. --EngineerScotty 21:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Fixed link"

You know, there is a reason we have redirects. You just wasted a bunch of time. --SPUI (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Bridges

I am trying to gaterh support for Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and I would appreciated your help. Thanks, Cacophony 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation in NYC

Hello Jmchuff - I noticed you've done work on the the Transportation in New York City article. It's really come along and has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. You shold vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW Wv235 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon State Hospital

Thanks for prettying up my ugly references in that article. :) Katr67 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm kind of a perfectionist and, also, footnotes look more professional for an encyclopedia. What really got me to do it was that some references were via footnotes and some weren't. Now, I've got to add the other template I like: Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale Jason McHuff 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, though I'm a kinda perfectionist who is spread a little too thin. :) One of these days we can get real fancy and use citation templates... I like Geolinks too, thanks for adding it. Katr67 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we can. Jason McHuff 18:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ^{[citation needed]} tag

Hi there - I noticed you put a "Citation needed" tag on this paragraph of Milwaukee County Stadium:

County Stadium was originally built as a home for the Milwaukee Brewers of the minor league American Association, replacing the outdated and deteriorating Borchert Field.

I am going to address it now, but was wondering what part of the sentence you felt needed citation. That it was built for the Brewers is evident from the graphic. --Chancemichaels 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I think it was because I found it odd to build a stadium for a team that didn't exist for much longer. Maybe I was confused between the old (minor league) Brewers and the newer (major league) Brewers. BTW, that was nice of you to ask me. Jason McHuff 06:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to do it - I was hoping that a little conversation could avoid a revert war. Your confusion makes sense, given the major league team named after the earlier minor league club. The stadium was built in part to house the minor league club, and in part to attract a relocating major league club. It was successful at the second, so the first never came to pass. I'm going to remove the tag, if that's okay with you. I hope the paragraph as it stands now helps minimize the confusion. --Chancemichaels 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels