User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 10

For discussions before May 2012 see User talk:Jim.henderson/archive 1 User talk:Jim.henderson/archive 2 User talk:Jim.henderson/archive 3 User talk:Jim.henderson/archive 4 User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 5 User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 6 User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 7 User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 8 User talk:Jim.henderson/Archive 9

Photo mixup

I've discovered a mixup with this image. Second RPC was located at 308 W. 122nd Street, and Street View shows a church at that address with a sign reading "Mount Olive Baptist Church". Street View shows this church at 123rd and Lenox, but it's apparently Ephesus Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drat; it's near bedtime and I'll be bicycling in the morning (through Central Harlem, among others) and with other things to do will not have time to look it up. By my foggy memory the 2nd Reformed Church was sold in the early 20th century and the present Adventist congregation bought it either directly or in midcentury. Maybe it's in the NYCLPC Guidebook. Have fun sorting it out; I'll be checking it tomorrow night or Monday. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it perhaps a Dutch Reformed or a German Reformed congregation? Such a church would simply be "Reformed", not "Reformed Presbyterian". In 1888, 2nd RPC was on 39th Street near Sixth Avenue, but per its Landmarks Preservation Commission Report, the landmarked building was erected in 1897; I'd be surprised if they moved twice in less than ten years. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you get a chance (sooner or later), could you get a photo of Emmanuel AME Church on 119th near Fifth? About 0.8 miles away, it was formerly First RPC; as an unofficial denominational historian, I'd really find it helpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep piling on the comments, but yes, the church at Second and 123rd was Dutch, the Second Reformed Church. See page 3 of the Landmarks Preservation Commission's designation statement for Metropolitan Baptist Church. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, still tired from yesterday's 50 mile bike ride including an unexpected detour through Bayonne and Jersey City. At the beginning I snapped the 119th St church; hope to get to uploading it this week though I'll be returning to Staten Island twice. Yes, the repeated comments create repeated E-mails that accumulated in my Android phone; I would reconfigure to stop that if the nuisance were not slight.

As for the substance, I thought this was a landmarked former Dutch Reformed church but a quick look at the official NYC Landmarks Guidebook fails to find at all the church in the photo. This suggests I indeed screwed up. Got other things to do before my computer club meeting and other activities but I expect to find time to study enough to plead guilty or innocent this week and rename the photo or whatever needs doing. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right a quick look for evidence of NYCLPC or NHRP listing has found none, so I'm wrong on that. As for whether this was the Second Reformed Church of Harlem, I have left a reply on the picture's talk page [1] and would appreciate any help that could be provided there. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The root of the other errors seems to be my incorrect insertion of the picture into List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan above 110th Street, having mistaken it for, not a Reformed Presbyterian to the northeast or anything to the south, but a sister Dutch Reformed to the west not yet Wikiphotographed. All fixed now, I hope. Oh, I was going to insert that 119th St AME, wasn't I? Pretty soon. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally got around to uploading my 119th St picture. Cloudy morning compounded the usual problem of photographer incompetence but I hope to revisit this year. Today after a morning blowout (should have replaced that tire a thousand miles ago) it was Staten Island again; got some nice snaps including a lovely Armory. Hmm, probably my favorite biker gang will go to Hastings this week; might be able to make a head start, snap the church in morning sun, and intercept them en route. So little time; so much fun to be had. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronics terms

Hi Jim, I'm a bit baffled by your edit summary at Signal reflection. You seem to imply that only articles that are stubs just containing a definition should be in this category. That was not how I read the category, or have been using it. I believed it was meant for articles whose title is an electronics term. That said, that particular article probably does not belong anyway. It is not a set phrase, but a sum-of-parts as they would say on Wiktionary. Spinning Spark 01:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drat; intelligent people keep making think about what I'm doing. Unfair. Anyway, however reluctantly, I have begun to think and, as usual when facing a judgement question, to look for precedents. I happened upon Category:Terminology and made it a grandparent to the cat in question. Its talk page has a brief discussion from years ago about technical terminology categories in general, and the examples given seem to have disappeared. This suggests to my possibly excessively suggestible mind that terminology categories are mostly a bad thing that ought to be industriously whittled down and maybe even eliminated. Anyway the question deserves more attention, and probably a more widely watched forum would attract better ideas. Should we carry on the discussion in the cat's own talk page, or the parent's or grandparent's, or perhaps best of all, the Electronics Project's? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology categories would certainly be a bad thing if they were being used in the way implied in that discussion. They would have been entirely populated with WP:DICDEFs, which certainly come under WP:NOT. Such stubs are either expanded into articles, deleted, redirected, moved to Wiktionary with a soft redirect, or incorporated in a list such as List of nautical terms. However, the members of these categories don't seem to be that, or they aren't any more. I agree a discussion would be useful, and as it affects numerous categories it should be somewhere central such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Or it could be on Category talk:Terminology but it should still be linked from the Wikiproject. I'll take a trawl through their archives to see if it's been discussed before. Spinning Spark 15:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; the Category Project is an excellent choice of forum; germane and of interest to appropriate watchers but not very busy. I don't expect to find time to comment further in the next few hours. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this conversation over there, see what they think. Spinning Spark 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

Hi Jim, belated congratulations for contributing over 50 articles, I've now made your account an Autopatroller. If you'd like to have wp:Rollback as well, just have a read of the policy and tell me when you would and wouldn't use it. Cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Gravesend Bay 2012

Excellent shot! I really like the way it seems to match the colonial image. Dave Golland (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you. I had forgotten about that 1880s painting but saw the article again before retouching, so yes, carefully included as much of the tree as got caught in the photo, and cropped out a cute but distracted-looking young woman to arrive at a similar composition. Alas, the storeline has so changed (the land under the tree is only 50 years old) that I see no way to set up a similarly attractive southwestern view with the Monmouth Highlands in background. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Jim, just saying Hi. I have seen your name in a couple of articles I have looked at and mostly we co-operated unknowingly on the Signalling System No 5 work. My time in telecomms on this side of the pond was 1968 to 2004 with BT (a lot of it BT International) and 2005-2010 with our MoD. Glad you're enjoying your retirement too. All the best, Ken.