Talk:SS Badger

message: I added the infobox. I don't know if I formatted all of it correctly, and I do know that there are attributes that can be removed from the code. I'll leave that for someone else to work on later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: nice work on the history of the ferry line, the operation history of the vessel and the propulsion system. But I am missing even a high-level description of the vessel itself. Construction method - welded or riveted steel? How many decks, which partitioning? Passenger facilities (how many staterooms on which deck, how many lounges on which deck)? Changes when converted from rail car ferry to car ferry? Some inside photos would be nice (car deck / passenger lounge). Shurely someone here is using this ferry regularly and can easily compile these facts? --Himbeerkuchen (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: description

message: Is there a list of Lake Michigan ferries or an article about them?  I was hoping to find mention of any other of these ferries at this site. I know there is at least one other, the Lake Express.Kdammers (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any more running current and the SS Badger was on the only ferries on the Great Lakes for a long time until the Lake Express. I'm not aware of an article on the topic but it does sound encyclopedic. Royalbroil 17:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ferries? 

message: Agreed that the Marker Database is self-published, but the information sourced to it actually comes from the historical marker, a photograph of which appears at the Marker web site. So I think this source is reliable for this information, unless the marker itself (installed by the Wisconsin Historical Society) is wrong. In other words, Wisconsin Historical Society is the source of this information; Marker Database is simply reprinting it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to verify that we're only citing information from the actual marker, then we can switch it out to a -type citation using the link as a courtesy link, no more. However, if we're citing commentary from the webpage, we can't do that. Imzadi 1979 →  16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having applied for placement of historical markers in Michigan, I personally know that their verification standards are strict.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which doesn't resolve the issue. If we're citing information from the marker, then the webpage is a courtesy link to the text of that marker, and we should cite the marker itself, -style. If we're citing information from the webpage itself, and not the marker, then that source fails our guidelines as a reliable source. Imzadi 1979 →  19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed what wasn't actually in the text of the marker, and switched it to a cite sign. I didn't know about that template, thanks for the pointer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marker database 

message: What's up with the contradictory dates for NHL listing? Normally I'd go with the reliable secondary sources, but the NPS web site seems like a pretty definitive source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of NHL listing 

message: In this edit  reverted a link I added to a reference, with an edit summary that said "Undid revision 827166439 by Geo Swan (talk); already linked in preceding footnote"
I checked the WP:MOS.  I was surprised it doesn't say, one way or another, whether the publisher should be linked.  Yes, in the body of articles, we don't link every instance.  We try to link only the first instance.  
But, by very widespread convention, we DO make multiple links to publishers, in every reference.  
Trying to link to the first instance can be problematic, as good faith editors can move paragraphs around, within articles  Good faith editors can have a good faith reason to remove a paragraph.  The move or excision of a paragraph can mean that the first instance of a reference to a topic we could link to is no longer the first instance.
This problem is even more acute when the link occurs in a reference.  I see this as a strong justification of the usual practice -- linking the publisher in multiple references.
Do you have a reason for your unconventional unlinking?  Care to explain yourself?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unconventional, and per the logic at WP:OVERLINK followed by dozens of FAs I've worked on, no, we don't need to link a publisher in every instance in the footnotes. Imzadi 1979 →  04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking and unlinking the publication of references 

message: What date did they come out. 2600:1700:4950:1180:A13E:92D3:C701:E8D4 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing cards