Talk:Leslie Barns
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leslie Barns 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Leslie Barns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130622061926/http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv/ to http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/lrv/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Illustrations for sites considered
editRe: Change by User:Joeyconnick described as "better as references because they are being used as references, as opposed to being used in an illustrative way". The diagrams were were intended as illustrations rather than references. The text already had a reference. The illustrations were provided because what they show would be difficult to impossible to describe in words. By presenting the links as references, most readers would assume there are no illustrations because they look like just another reference. I was thinking of putting the links to the illustrations in External links, but that would detach them from their corresponding text and they would loose context. (I originally coded them such as Hillcrest Complex, but that apparantly violates some editorial standard.) May I restore the "External media" template? I saw it used in other articles for the same purpose. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
that apparently violates some editorial standard.
That would be WP:ELPOINTS, point 2. Fairly fundamental guidance. It does say{{External media}}can be used, however. I'm still not sure why these illustrations are so valuable (they are really poor quality) but I'll revert myself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- Thank you. I find the illustrations to be interesting what-if's, especially the one for the Hillcrest Complex which might come to fruition in future (Hillcrest Complex#Proposed carhouse). TheTrolleyPole (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)