Talk:Eli H. Janney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. 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 | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded and Imagedetails parameters from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request. The editor who added the request suggests the following:
|
Contents |
[edit] Article needs more depth:
I am having trouble regarding the chronology:
- Andrew Jackson Beard:
- "His Jenney Coupler [or "Jenny"] joined two [cars together] simply by bumping them against ["eachother" or "each other"] and was patented in November 1897."
- Eli Hamilton Janney:
- "...in April 25, 1873, for an automatic ["carcoupler" or "car coupler"] which, closed automatically when [the cars] came together."
1873? 1897? If the one from '73 dominates now, then how could the one from '97 also dominate?
- Andrew Jackson Beard: 1849-1921, seventy-two?
- Eli Hamilton Janney: Nov. 12, 1831, - June 16, 1912, eighty, or eighty-one?
This does need much work.
Thank You. hopiakuta 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move discussion
I've just moved this page [these pages]. If there are double-redirects, well, I did not see them.
Thank You. hopiakuta 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[5] hopiakuta 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those aren't double redirects as they only go through one redirect to get to the article's new location. Since we're on the subject, I disagree with the move that you've made today. Looking at the list of links, it's clear that there are many more articles that refer to this Eli Janney than the new article's subject. If anything, I would think that the new article should be at Eli Janney (musician) and Eli Janney be made a disambig page with {{hndis}} on it. Slambo (Speak) 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do contend that it's more important to disambiguate the years, scribe a page f/ Andrew Jackson Beard, otherwise offer more depth. I do not have the data. Do you? hopiakuta 18:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If there would be " Eli Janney (musician)", then there should be " Eli Janney (engineer, confederate soldier)". Thank You. hopiakuta 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- See Robert Stevens for an example of the kind of disambiguation that is also appropriate here. For subjects where a middle initial is known, the initial is usually sufficient for disambiguation of the article title (i.e. Robert L. Stevens or Robert J. Stevens) and a paranthetical disambiguation phrase is used for those where a middle initial is not known or is not enough to distinguish two individuals (i.e. Robert Stevens (director) or Robert Stevens (photo editor)). For this subject, since the inventor's middle initial is known, his article should be at Eli H. Janney while the musician's article, since no middle initial is known, would be at Eli Janney (musician) and Eli Janney would be a disambiguation page pointing to both articles. For more examples of human name disambiguation pages, take a look at some of the pages that use the hndis template. Slambo (Speak) 19:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- So are there any real objections to making the page moves as I described to bring these articles in line with existing human name disambiguation practices? Slambo (Speak) 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] form versus function
I had come to this page hoping to learn about Mr. Beard, as he has no page here. So, therefore, historical content is more of the issue than format. I have learned much from this website, & that's excellent; however, form often destroys function.
If I want to learn more regarding Mr. Beard, & Mr. Janney, then others, likely, possibly, do as well. Learning about these two men could teach us about slavery & class, & transit issues, & even, about energy. The only wiki-places that I've located, thus far, w/ the phrase "form versus function" are: toy_dog (teacup_dog); talk:religion/Archive002 (religion); talk:religion/Archive001 (via google); talk:religion/_archive1. With the various scandals, I'd expected much more than that.
Please, biographical-content, historical-content. Please, where? If anyone knows where, then please do post it. If it violates either copyright, or whatever else, then I do hope that I could read it prior to being deleted. Their biographies were, likely, scribed a century ago, & are likely to be "public" anyhow.
I, largely, want to learn why the chronology seems to conflict, as I wrote above.
These men had done enough to earn many more pages, although they, likely, never had heard any word similar to "internet". For them, the phrase "movie theater" was new:
The first theater dedicated exclusively to showing motion pictures was Vitascope Hall, established on Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana in 1896. The first permanent structure designed for screening of movies was Tally's Electric Theater, completed in 1902 in Los Angeles, California. The 1913 opening of the Regent Theater in New York City signalled a new respectability for the medium, and the start of the two-decade heyday of American cinema design. Los Angeles promoter Sid Grauman began the trend of theatre-as-destination with his ornate "Million Dollar Theatre" (the first to signify its primary use for motion pictures with the "theatre" spelling), which opened on Broadway in downtown Los Angeles in 1918.
Louis_Aimée_Augustin_Le_Prince; Louis_Aimé_Augustin_Le_Prince.
Thank You. hopiakuta 15:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] free speech does not exist.
Making my messages more difficult to read is truly offensive; but, is something that is a major habit on this website. However, even more offensive is that we have no method to collect the much needed data to create worthy articles, in a large number of cases.
I do suspect that one possibility might be to find a way to convince librarians, & publishers, to actively participate, on a large scale.
Please do quit assuming how I want my messages to appear. I do scribe my messages according to what I find, what I perceive, increases readability.
Do not punish others for being unique, or you shall, eventually, find others treating you as irrelevant, as well. I have already described that I had come to this article of a sincere interest in the issue; it seems that you have ignored this, as well as the effort in collecting all of the data that I could. I have not altered your text, thus far.
If you want to do something credible, then assist w/ the research. Quit garbaging my messages. Now. I am holding-back several various adjectives.
You do seem to have neither form nor function. &, as for "assume good faith", why you do not?
hopiakuta 19:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
