Fort Towson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 5 September 2013 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs). United States: Colorado Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to improve, create, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the New section tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us! National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Using a summary of the nom page, and then the nom page as a link, NOT a very wise use of material nor does it make it the start. states its a partial of the nom form on the NRHP site, which then states, its a summary of the nom form, click to see full nom form.....Sorry, but thats not a true different source, especially when the link explicitly states, its a brief of the nom form. Asked question on NRHP talk page, my apologies, I am trying to learnCoal town guy (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me please, how a summary that states explicitly, this is a summary of the nom form click the pdf link below for the full form etc etc is a different ref than the pdf???? Otherwiose, calling them 2 seopearte refs is a tad overkill, especially when, its clearly, and unambiguously stated, that the summary is a partial of the full nom form..........Coal town guy (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is being asked. There are two references in the article, one to a "summary/program" webpage, and one to a full NRHP nomination PDF file (that is linked from the webpage). The "summary/program" webpage has the NRHP reference number and the NRHP listing date and perhaps some other info not part of the PDF file, so both references add to the article. --doncram 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once more with clarity, the Summary page, explicitly states it is a summary of the nom form. The summary page then indicates, if you want to see the full nom form, click the pdf link below. The PDF is the nom form. My question is, how do we count those as different refs? The reason I ask is, this could be a very slippery slope. A bad slippery slope. I can see that yyes, its a different url, that is a fact. BUT, are you saying that they are a different ref? Maybe I dont get what you mean, and I am very open to discussion. I just cant quite wrap my head around, here is a summary, the summary states, oh, I am a summary of the nom form, and if you want to see the full form, there is a link below, and we then say, they are 2 different refs........again, do we call that a different ref? AND if we do, why? The exact words on the page are "link to full file"Coal town guy (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE, I looked at the summary page, copied it to notepad, went to the pdf and verbatim, in the pdf, are the contents of the summary page, and the PDF is 15.5 Megs....probably why we have a summary pageCoal town guy (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any issue. The webpage has some info that is not in the linked PDF, i.e. it has the NRHP listing date and the NRHP reference number. I need/want to have a reference supporting the NRHP listing date and reference number, so it is appropriate to include a reference to the webpage. The full NRHP nomination document PDF has lots more info. It is different than the webpage. It has an author and a preparation date and is a more proper full source. Editor Teemu08 added info to the article from the PDF. It is appropriate to show the explicit full source in the wikipedia article. Do you want to delete one of the references? That would be wrong. Both are sources actually used in this article. --doncram 14:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware the PDF has more info, thats why you have a summary page, stating the full data in the PDF, one could logically assume the PDF has more data. If you go to a verbatim word for word level, they will be different, and thats a literal interpretation that ignores any and all of my questions. This will enable lots and lots of people to have multiple refs on a page, when in reality, its the same ref, its the same data, one is a summary, with the phrase, link to full at the bottom. Ergo, they would by sheer fiat, differ. This could disable the effort at NRHP to find single sourced articles. I have rehashed this enough, I am at this time in totum, uninvolved with this specific article and talk page.Coal town guy (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Addressed also at wt:NRHP by discussion btwn CTG and others. --doncram 17:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this Talk page to comment about this diff and then this diff which both changed a reference used by editor Teemu08. There are 2 references in the article, a "summary/program" one and a big PDF NRHP nomination. Teemu08 used the big PDF NRHP nomination to add to the article. Teemu08 linked to the PDF document, but by a new abbreviated reference rather than using one of two more fully formed references in the article. And then I think there was some confusion by others about which of the two fully formed references applied. I fixed it once but have been reverted.

The info added by Teemu08 simply is not provided in the "summary/program" reference. Coal town guy, could you please restore the PDF reference, i.e. undo your edit to the article that reverted my correction to the article? Please look at the sources, if you have any doubt. And/or discuss, i guess, if there is still confusion. Thanks. --doncram 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion section, i guess there's not going to be further discussion. I restored the reference to the source which was the source used, fixing the problem. Done, i hope. --doncram 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]