Misplaced Pages

Talk:Skybridge (TransLink): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:17, 26 July 2005 editZscout370 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,497 edits Foreground and Background← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:53, 26 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,538 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(75 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
The second image, which still has the girls in it, can be found here: ] - Caution: Image contains nudity
{{oldpeerreview}}
I've emailed Vancouver's Transit Authority to see if they have an image that we might use that would be more safe for someone to view at work or with children in the Prudish States of America. ] 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:Awe, let's put it in the article. :p ¦ ] 01:08, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
| algo = old(180d)
::Both pics are not actually of the bridge, they are of two topless girls that happen to have the bridge somewhere in the background. As I said before, I'm trying to get a picture of the bridge sans the topless girls. If this were an article about breasts I wouldn't mind the picture as much (afterall, it's not all that much of a textbook image even in that case) but this is about a bridge. I thought just having a link to the pic would suffice but someone else has a problem with that. So in the meantime, why don't we wait till we have a picture where the focus of the picture is the bridge? ] 17:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
| archive = Talk:Skybridge (TransLink)/Archive %(counter)d
:::I just think it makes Misplaced Pages look like the product of ogling 14-year-old boys to have this picture in an article about a bridge. Obviously there are a number of articles where images of partially clothed people and even full nudity are properly displayed, but this should not be one of them. BTW, this image was previuosly at ], where it was removed by someone because of seeming lack of direct relevance to that topic (see ]). The image is pretty unprofessional over all; I'd be hard-pressed to see what it illustrates besides toplessness (and that in a not particularly good way).--] 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}


{{refideas
== Prudishness ==
|1={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_01_13.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=January 13, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}}
|2={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_09_22.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=September 22, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}}
|3={{Cite web |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/rider_guide/Buzzer-Vault/1980s/1989/Buzzer_1989_11_03.pdf |title=The Buzzer |date=November 3, 1989 |website=www.translink.ca |publisher=BC Transit |access-date=February 23, 2020}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Trains}}
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|importance=low|Vancouver=yes|Vancouver-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels|importance=Low}}
}}


== Citations ==
]
Needs cleanup, since at the end of every single sentence there is a 'citation needed' warning
Look - the photo here has got the boobies that you were so worried about edited out! Stopping publication is ]! ] 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
: Every single one of those statements needs a citation. I'd put a "This article needs citations" message up and do away with all the "citation needed" tags, but someone removed that very same message before, and I'm not in the mood for a revert war. ] 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
*Give me a break. There are dozens of images on Misplaced Pages much more revealing than those two. They're just not on articles about bridges.--] 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
::Three points:
Yeah, right. Well, how about this one then Mister Censor? ] 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
::#Most of the things listed here are common knowledge and thus don't need a citation. See ].
]]]
::#Adding {{Tl|cn}} to ''every'' sentence in an article can be considered to be ], which is strongly discouraged.
::#I admire your goal of making Misplaced Pages better referenced, but the best way to do that is to jump in and find references for topics that you know about, not adding {{Tl|cn}} to everything. Even for something like this, you shouldn't have a big problem finding citations online.
::Anyway, I've rolled back your edit. ] // ] 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==
:This is still a low quality photo. In general "tourist" photos, which contain some famous feature but have the tourist's companion prominently in the foreground, are not suitable photos to illustrate an encyclopedia. We want a photo of the bridge, and any person in the foreground is a problem.


Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
:If we leave this photo here, then there is less incentive to get a good photo, so I would prefer that this cropped photo be removed from the article.-] 20:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ].
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ].
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.


'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''
==RfC==
I came here from RfC, where one of the people in this dispute wrote " Is it right for a Cabal of self-appointed CENSORS to REMOVE and VANDASLISE legitimate photographs of Vancouver Skybridge just because they are PRUDES?" (breaking the guidelines of RFC by singing with their name, not linking to the talk page and not making the summary neutral). Curious as to why a picture of a bridge would leading to accusations of prudery I view the article and read the talk page. Having done so I completely agree that this image is not suitable for the article, cropped or uncropped, because ''its not a picture of the bridge'', it is a picture of two topless girls with the bridge in the background.


*<nowiki>http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver3.html</nowiki>
I have no issue with the nudity, indeed see my involvement in the discussion over this photograph at ], and with other photographs at ]. However, the criteria for an image's suitability include that it must be ''relevant'' and ''apropriate'' - this picture is neither.
*:''Triggered by <code>\brailway-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*Relevant? In the case of this article, a picture needs to be of the bridge in question in order to be relevant, the focus of the picture is the girls, not the bridge.
*Apropriate? to be apropriate the image must first of all be relevant and it should not include things unrelated or likely to cuase offense (without reason). A photograph of nude people is apropriate on articles like ] and ], but not here. Equally a photograph of an orthodox Jew is not apropriate on an article about arabs, an image of an arab with an orthodox Jew would be apropriate on articles about the arab-israli conflict, for example.


If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.
I have posted a picture request at ] in the hope that a native of the city or someone from that area will be able to take a photograph of it for us. ] 14:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that the photograph(s) with the girls are not relevant to an article about a bridge. -- ] ] 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


{{done|Resolved}} This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
:I suggested to remove the girls completely from the photo, rename the photo, and we could get some photos from http://images.google.com/images?q=Vancouver+Skybridge&hl=en. ] ] 16:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


== Disambiguation ==
I'd say it's abundandly clear that the image is unsuitable. Broonee's response to this would seem to fall under ] ] 20:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I did fix his entry in the RfC so it sounded NPOV. But I agree, his/her response below really shows that he violted POINT. ] ] 20:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


{{reply to|Joeyconnick}} ] or ]?
:The images are not appropriate. Gratuitous nudity is well ... gratuitous. ] ] 19:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


I don't know if the dab for this article necessarily needs to match that of ] given that it's about transit infrastructure and {{em|not}} transit service. Given that ] is embedded at the bottom of the page, I don't think too many readers would be confused to where "Metro Vancouver" is and "Vancouver" alone has huge name recognition. ] —] (]) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
== Other photos to be removed ==
: Was there a request to move the article? I don't think it's necessary. ] (]) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
If you VANDASLISE my page, these SIMILAR photos should be VANDALISE and poked with a hot stick:
:{{u|Walter Görlitz}} I think it stems from the notion that "(TransLink)" is not a super-recognizable terms outside transit circles or Lower Mainland locals.
:{{ping|Northwest}} well unsurprisingly I haven't changed my mind re: "Metro Vancouver". I would rather move the template to "Bridges of Greater Vancouver", honestly, and go with "SkyBridge (Greater Vancouver)". But of the two, I think "SkyBridge (British Columbia)" is best... yes, both New West and Surrey are in Metro/Greater Vancouver but again, if we're going by something similar to CANSTATION, province makes the most sense if city doesn't work. —] (]) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
:: The thought of a reader having an issue differentiate between "Metro Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver" hadn't crossed my mind earlier. On second thought, yeah, "British Columbia" is the better dab. When following ]; shouldn't ] instead be ] or could the dab be dropped altogether if there's a case for it? —] (]) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


== References ==
].]]
]. ] 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*You fail to see the point Broonee. Those people aren't the focus of the picture and no one is going to object having these people in as they're not shocking to anyone. - ]|] 08:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


{{ping|Joeyconnick}} I had incorrectly assumed it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the references that they were not added to verify the name of a bridge, but as an early reliable source for a contributor to use when undertaking the next major redraft of this page. Naturally, such a person would be shuffling around all existing and later references accordingly, rather than myself, since the subject is not within my ambit of interests.] (]) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
===Caution===
: We don't add ]s to an article when {{tl|refideas}} exist. When no , it looked to me as though it was the addition of references as well. ] (]) 15:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

::{{re|DMBanks1}} a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —] (]) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Do not threaten to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.
:::{{ping|Joeyconnick}} The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.] (]) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
] 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|DMBanks1}}. I have now added the refideas based on your earlier comment . You should have done so and not added the OVERREFS. You're welcome.
:And, this is not your article/page, the article belongs to everyone. ] ] 00:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:::: Yet now you're changing your story.

:::: There was no hasty deletion of the content. The addition was unnecessary. ] (]) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
== Foreground and Background ==

On the one hand, it appears that the controversy has subsided because there is consensus to leave the questionable photo out.

On the other hand, there is a distinction in photography and any other representational art between foreground and background. In the questionable photo, the bridge was in the background, and the girls were in the foreground. If the bridge is the subject of the article, the bridge should be in the foreground, or it should be in mid-ground with nothing distracting in foreground.

Perhaps there needs to be a Misplaced Pages guideline to this effect. (I am aware that someone will ignore it, and once in a while there is reason to ignore a guideline.)
] 15:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that it would be a good idea to have a Misplaced Pages guideline explaining the relevance of subjects in images.
:] 16:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

:I agree. ] ] 19:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
:I also agree. ] ] 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:53, 26 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skybridge (TransLink) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
Skybridge (TransLink) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
  • "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. January 13, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
  • "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. September 22, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
  • "The Buzzer" (PDF). www.translink.ca. BC Transit. November 3, 1989. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTrains
WikiProject icon
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCanada: British Columbia / Vancouver Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconBridges and Tunnels Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations

Needs cleanup, since at the end of every single sentence there is a 'citation needed' warning

Every single one of those statements needs a citation. I'd put a "This article needs citations" message up and do away with all the "citation needed" tags, but someone removed that very same message before, and I'm not in the mood for a revert war. Anonymous 57 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Three points:
  1. Most of the things listed here are common knowledge and thus don't need a citation. See WP:CITE.
  2. Adding {{cn}} to every sentence in an article can be considered to be disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, which is strongly discouraged.
  3. I admire your goal of making Misplaced Pages better referenced, but the best way to do that is to jump in and find references for topics that you know about, not adding {{cn}} to everything. Even for something like this, you shouldn't have a big problem finding citations online.
Anyway, I've rolled back your edit. JYolkowski // talk 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/vancouver3.html
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II Online 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II Online 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

@Joeyconnick: SkyBridge (British Columbia) or SkyBridge (Metro Vancouver)?

I don't know if the dab for this article necessarily needs to match that of TransLink (British Columbia) given that it's about transit infrastructure and not transit service. Given that Template:Bridges of Metro Vancouver is embedded at the bottom of the page, I don't think too many readers would be confused to where "Metro Vancouver" is and "Vancouver" alone has huge name recognition. Previous discussionNorthwest (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Was there a request to move the article? I don't think it's necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz I think it stems from the notion that "(TransLink)" is not a super-recognizable terms outside transit circles or Lower Mainland locals.
@Northwest: well unsurprisingly I haven't changed my mind re: "Metro Vancouver". I would rather move the template to "Bridges of Greater Vancouver", honestly, and go with "SkyBridge (Greater Vancouver)". But of the two, I think "SkyBridge (British Columbia)" is best... yes, both New West and Surrey are in Metro/Greater Vancouver but again, if we're going by something similar to CANSTATION, province makes the most sense if city doesn't work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The thought of a reader having an issue differentiate between "Metro Vancouver" and "Greater Vancouver" hadn't crossed my mind earlier. On second thought, yeah, "British Columbia" is the better dab. When following WP:CANSTATION; shouldn't SkyTrain (Vancouver) instead be SkyTrain (British Columbia) or could the dab be dropped altogether if there's a case for it? —Northwest (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

@Joeyconnick: I had incorrectly assumed it was blatantly obvious to anyone who had bothered to read the references that they were not added to verify the name of a bridge, but as an early reliable source for a contributor to use when undertaking the next major redraft of this page. Naturally, such a person would be shuffling around all existing and later references accordingly, rather than myself, since the subject is not within my ambit of interests.DMBanks1 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't add WP:OVERREFs to an article when {{refideas}} exist. When no edit summary other than " add references", it looked to me as though it was the addition of references as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@DMBanks1: a (much) better place for references like that is the article's talk page, not cluttering up the first sentence of the article. I think there's even a template for "potentially useful in the future references". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Joeyconnick: The single notation character remains a single notation character, so cluttering is not a relevant point. For those readers who actually read these references, there is an opportunity to compensate for the content deficiencies of the page. Your talk page suggestion may well be technically accurate, but like most contributors, I would not be plowing through the talk pages to identify useful references when redrafting a page. As for this article, I did actually read the non-Buzzer references. Even taking the content of all of them combined, they comprise far less useful information than the 4 Buzzer ones, which is one reason for the mediocre standard of the page. However, I am not prone to making hasty deletions of such weak reference material. We can only hope someone will not now be at a disadvantage from augmenting the Buzzer references with some proper research to create an improved page.DMBanks1 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@DMBanks1:. I have now added the refideas based on your earlier comment . You should have done so and not added the OVERREFS. You're welcome.
Yet now you're changing your story.
There was no hasty deletion of the content. The addition was unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Categories: