User talk:Averette/2006

Sorry to disturb, but am wishing to take a moment of your time for something I hope will be of interest. I'd like to invite you to join a new WikiProject I've started, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you feel so inclined, please feel free to join. And spread the word to any other interested parties.  :) -Ebyabe 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Consider me a member. I have great interest in anything historical pertaining to my homeland (South Florida).

keep them coming, and I'll cover the Ft. Lauderdale / Palm Beach area, as well as Miami.

I need to get a better camera first, but for now, I'll use my 1.3 mpxl until I can get another 4+.

ReignMan 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I'll be sure and continue taking them as I see opportunities arise. - Marc Averette 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you fixed a couple of redirect links in Little Haiti.[1] While your diligence is commendable, it is unnecessary and occasionally counter-productive to do so - see WP:R. Hope this saves you some work.

Oh, I see what you're doing. When you move a page, a redirect is automatically created from the original location to the new page. There is no need to go through and update all the links to the old page. However, if there are any redirects that pointed to the old page, they should be fixed. You can check this out using the "what links here" link in the toolbox on the lefthand side. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links to Biscayne Boulevard (Miami) & Miami Avenue (Miami) because they no longer exist. They are now just Biscayne Boulevard & Miami Avenue, due to unambiguity. I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is here. - Marc Averette 14:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a problem, it's just a waste of time. If you click the links you'll find that they spit you out at the correct page anyway, because the pages do in fact still exist - see [2][3]. The reason these redirects are created is so you don't have to go through and fix all the links every time you move a page. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought that it was proper Wiki policy to change the links instead of having them go to redirects. If it's OK to leave them, I'll do that from now on. There were only about 5 pages that linked to the old one, so it wasn't a big deal, but if there were many I can see how it would be a waste of time. Thanks. - Marc Averette 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for the quick catch. Lost my head for a moment. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With great displeasure I saw that in the new article Mule Keys you converted the km figures to miles, with the remark that the United States would use miles. Even if this were true, I don't think that the English language wikipedia is owned by the United States. I also don't think that the United States is the only country where English is spoken. In addition, millions of users whose native language is not English, use the English-language wikipedia to look for information, since it has the most information. And most of the world uses the metric system. And the United States is changing, too:

• Microsoft Encarta, the encyclopedia of a United States company (English-language version), uses kilometers (miles only in parenthesis)
• NASA World Wind, a software by a United States government agency, which I used to take the measurements, provides distances only in meters and kilometers

Therefore, I dare to change the article back to usage of metric units. Thank you for your understanding.--Ratzer 13:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM, people. U.S. articles use imperial units with corresponding metric conversions rounded to a similar accuracy in parenthesis. – Chacor 15:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples on WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement first give metric units and then imperial units in parenthesis (just like Encarta). If that's the agreement, alright. User:Averette however removed metric units and replaced them by imperial units, contrary to this agreement.--Ratzer 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from the Wikipedia manual of style "For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon. " The article pertains to a place under jurisdiction of the USA, therefore USA measurements should be used. The distance between islands in the USA is measured in yards, feet or miles, not kilometers or meters. If metric measurements MUST be used for the rest of the English speaking world outside of where the article pertains, they should be listed in the parenthesis, not the USA ones, since the area the article pertains to is in USA and is subject to measurements used in the USA. - Oh, and the USA is not even close to changing over to metric. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you've been sadly misinformed. - Marc Averette 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had referred to the Wikipedia manual of style at the moment you made your changes, you could have shortened this discussion. I certainly do accept what the manual of style says (as I don't place myself outside of the Wikipedia community but consider myself part of it), "U.S. measurements first", but I do not accept your interpretation of it that you can drop the metric units as you please. If there is a first, there MUST also be a second. - I gave you two indications of the USA changing to metric, and I am adding a third now:

1. Microsoft Encarta in English (Microsoft is a U.S. company)

2. Exclusive use of metric units in NASA World Wind (NASA is a U.S. government agency)

3. Exclusive use of metric units on the pages of the Bureau of the Census, which is a U.S. government agency, e.g. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_lang=en&_ts=184471117172, where the area figures of all units, states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, blocks, etc. are given in m² (square meters)

These are hard facts, not misinformation (of course you may find other examples where still U.S. customary units are used, but this won't disprove my point since I'm not contending that the USA has gone completely and exclusively metric yet). You may however keep using U.S. customary units.--Ratzer 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep this discussion here, no need to follow up on my discussion page.--Ratzer 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Microsoft is a private company that happens to be a multinational, therefore they choose to go with the most common world measurements. Irrelevant.

2. Same applies to NASA, since it's their World Wind site, chooses to express their data in worldy metric. I can assure you all data given to USA television & radio weather forecasts is in imperial units.

3. I went to the Bureau of Census, the exact link *you* gave, and guess what? I clicked on the 'map' tab, chose 'select geographic type' = state, highlighted Florida, clicked 'Map It', and what was the first thing I saw? 1625 MILES across. The bottom of the map shows the scale of the map as being 1625 *miles* across, not kilometers or meters. Now, what were you saying about the Census Bureau "exclusively" using metric again?

USA is using imperial units and there is no "change" on the horizon that I can see. Temperature is in Farenheit, road markers are in miles. That's just the way it is here. These are hard facts. - Marc Averette 14:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 3., I take back the "exclusive". All area figures that I have seen were in square meters. A bunch of them I used in the islands table of the Mule Keys article. Go ahead if you wish and change the whole table to square yards, but please leave the square meters in parentheses.

In general, the discussion of a change toward metrication is moving away from hard facts to evaluation. To me, the examples show a change toward metrication, to you, they mean nothing. We might just leave it at that. Whenever I have a chance, I'll put your yard and mile figures back into the Mule Keys article, with the metric figures in parentheses, but I don't think the table, all with original census bureau figures, should be changed (adding customary units would just destroy the design of the table).--Ratzer 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to change the table. The table is straightforward scientific data and should be left just as it's sourced. The only things I wish to change are the primary paragraphs of articles that state only metric data. If it's a place in the US, it should have miles, degrees Farenheit, pounds, etc. because that's how the data is actually measured here. The metric equivalent could be put after in () for other English readers. The entire scientific world uses metric (including the US). Perhaps this leads to the false impression that the US is 'changing', but I don't see it happening in either of our lifetimes. All road signs, media reports and official (legal) documents here use imperial measurements. The schools here teach both systems, since it must be known for any type of science or engineering degree, and it would be beneficial for all the world to use the same system, but I'm afraid that's a long, long way off. - Marc Averette 23:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that in the article Stock Island, Florida, you changed Raccoon Key to Key Haven. You present no reason for this change. I do greatly respect your local knowledge, and I understand that Key Haven is a common use name of the island in question, but it is not the official name as defined by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. Is there an agreement in Wikipedia to prefer common use names over official names? Someone without local knowledge who uses authoritative sources like [4] to find Key Haven doesn't get anywhere. The detailed USGS topographic maps also show only Raccoon Key, not Key Haven. So what's the point? It would seem correct to me to use the official name first, and the common use name in parenthesis.--Ratzer 09:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Raccoon Key is still the official name, as no maps that I can find list it as Key Haven either. The problem here is that everyone local refers to it as Key Haven. If you were to ask someone directions to Raccoon Key, they would most likely tell you there is no such place. Mention Key Haven, and anyone local would immediately point you in the right direction. Same is true for Marathon. Everyone seems to call the island "Marathon Key", although there is no such place. It's true name is Key Vaca. Perhaps Key Haven is too small to be listed as a CDP. The community name is definitely Key Haven, since there is a large decorative welcome sign at the entrance that says Key Haven in gold script. The civic association amongst the islanders that care to join is called the Key Haven civic association as well. Also the main road on the island is Key Haven Road, Key Haven Boulevard and Key Haven Terrace are also streets there. The article is also Key Haven, not Raccoon Key. If it is the official island name however, I'd have no objection to putting it back to Raccoon Key, although almost nobody that is local and reads it will know what it refers to. - Marc Averette 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about main article Raccoon Key and Key Haven redirecting to it (instead of the other way around). And in the text Raccoon Key, commonly known as Key Haven... Would that be a solution for both local people and the whole wide world, where everyone would find his thing?--Ratzer 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbury pointed out that it's Wik policy to use the most common name as the article name. Perhaps if the introductory paragraph for Key Haven was re-worded to say "Key Haven, officially named Raccoon Key...? " - Marc Averette 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great photo! I am being picky, but is there any way you can chop off the bottom part with the boat and the time stamp? More skyline and less boat/water would be nice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstepp (talk • contribs)

I agree, I'll see what I can do. - Marc Averette 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. It looks great!... The Miami skyline is growing up fast these days.

It sure is. I have to take a new photo every month just to keep up. Right now there are more cranes on the skyline than there are buildings. By 2010 Miami is expected to be as cosmopolitan as NYC and Chicago. - Marc Averette 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]