|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Note1}}{{Sign2}}
| |
| − | ==Articles to feature in newsletter and carousels==
| |
| − | I'd like to feature some wiki articles in the Hotrodders.com image carousels and weekly newsletter. Suggestions? Needs to be a good article that has been either recently started or recently improved upon significantly, with a really good pic.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:51, 11 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :Let me give it some thought; I should be able to come up w/a few suggestions within the next day or two.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 21:28, 11 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | =====Continued from Jon's talk page=====
| |
| − | Not as easy as I had first thought. Here are two that might work, but I'll keep looking into this. In the meantime, the first two are relatively recent:
| |
| − | *[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/1940_Ford_Pickup_recessed_tail_lights 1940 Ford Pickup recessed tail lights]
| |
| − | *[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Adjusting_hydraulic_lifters Adjusting hydraulic lifters]
| |
| − | The second pair are good articles IMHO, not that new though:
| |
| − | *[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Choosing_a_trailer Choosing a trailer] and
| |
| − | *[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Chrysler_Hemi_engine Chrysler Hemi engine]--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 08:08, 14 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Here are a few more to consider:
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Gear_ratio_check Gear ratio check]
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Metal_shaping Metal shaping]
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Mopar_tapered_axle_rear_brake_conversion Mopar tapered axle rear brake conversion]
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Pilot_bearing_and_bushings Pilot bearing and bushings] (still have photos to format)
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Rust_removal_with_Ospho Rust removal with Ospho]
| |
| − | :*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Narrowing_a_rearend Narrowing a rearend]
| |
| − | :--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 22:08, 18 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::And
| |
| − | ::*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/T-350_transmission_rebuild_tech T-350 tranny rebuild tech]--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 14:39, 19 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::Also
| |
| − | :::*[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Hot_rodding_the_HEI_distributor Hotrodding the HEI distributor]--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 05:18, 24 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::I've finished going through the pages in the Best articles category. The above articles are at this time what I'd consider the most eligible. Do you want to continue adding to this as articles are submitted/edited?--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 04:07, 27 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::::Yes, definitely continue adding. I've already featured some of the above, and many of them are older articles. I'm looking for something fresh, with good pics.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 10:21, 27 March 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::::[http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Cylinder_head_identification SBC cylinder head identification] has gotten revisions that include more text, photos and links along w/being moved from ''Cylinder head identification'' to '''''SBC cylinder head identification'''''. While the original page dates from 2009, it was only recently (2-2012) expanded into an actual page. I am open to constructive criticism and/or suggestions on how to improve it so it might be used in the newsletter or a carousel.
| |
| − | ::::::Same thing for [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Building_an_inline_6_Chevy_250_engine Building an inline 6 Chevy 250 engine]; it too was recently revised into an actual article from a stub dating from 2009. And suggestions are welcomed here, as well.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 09:52, 7 April 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Cleanup and deletions==
| |
| − | Just wanted to catch up on recent deletions. Most are junk and it's nice to see them eliminated. What's your position on the 'stub' articles -- basic frameworks like [[Ignition]], etc. Do you think they encourage future additions? Make the wiki look sloppy overall?--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 21:57, 9 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :I believe preexisting stubs that contain no information- if placed in the main Article categories- don't encourage contributions. Instead I believe the Article categories should contain only articles (or stubs) containing at least ''some'' information, the more the better. However, bare-bones stubs could be kept in the Undeveloped articles category so they don't disappoint someone doing a search for info.
| |
| − | :But that said, I am open to ANY tactic that would generate interest. Some options:
| |
| − | *compiling some basic framework stubs and submitting them individually into the 'active' article Categories (i.e. adding the stubs to the Brakes, Cooling, etc., categories, I could add some basic info as a start)
| |
| − | *adding the framework stubs to the Undeveloped articles
| |
| − | *adding the stubs as a category unto itself (like "Articles needed"), to the categories TOC (along with Brakes, Cooling, etc.)
| |
| − | *adding the Undeveloped articles page to the 'active' categories TOC
| |
| − | :By the way, I added a link to the Undeveloped articles on the Start a new article page.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 06:16, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::Agreed that preexisting stubs with no information don't encourage contributions. They may even '''dis'''courage contributions, because they make the wiki look like it has no content. Agreed on keeping stubs with some information, but keeping them out of the main categories. In looking at your recommendations above, I think one of the best options might be to add an "Undeveloped" sub-category to each of the main categories.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:59, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::Re "add an "Undeveloped" sub-category": Sweet; better visibility while at the same time keeping the stubs separate from the active articles. So, I'm thinking the sub-categories would be taken from the Undeveloped articles as well as any obvious subjects that may be missing, while leaving the Undeveloped articles page intact so the links to it will stay valid? --[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 13:56, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::Yes, that's what I had in mind. Something like "Undeveloped engine articles" as a subcat of Engine. Or "Undeveloped", or whatever looks correct on the category pages, and sticks out. Another option is to '''not''' make it a subcat, so it doesn't appear in the alphabetized subcategory list, and instead link to the Undeveloped category in each category description. Etc. Whatever looks and feels correct, and I'm sure we'll adjust and tweak it over time anyway. As long as we start moving away from just lumping in the undeveloped articles with the good ones.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 14:13, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::::I'll set up one or two categories w/an "Undeveloped [engine or whatever] articles" sub-category to see how it 'feels' and we can go from there. Any thoughts on how to make this stand out from the other pages in the subcategory? I can turn 'em <span style="color:red">'''RED'''</span>! lol--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 16:29, 19 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::::Red actually might not be a bad idea. If it's possible, we might also try some sort of template, even if it's just for a boilerplate explanatory sentence at the top of each main category, that describes the Undeveloped category.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:29, 20 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::::::That could work. I'll give some thought to the template contents unless you already have something in mind.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 11:52, 20 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::A few ideas can be seen [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/File:Undev_4.jpg here]. The Undeveloped sub-cat would appear just below the text. Still up in the air about how to word the sub-cat, but leaning towards a simple "Undeveloped [engine or whatever] articles". Is this even in the ballpark? I can also do a link, formatted similarly except directing the attention to the entire Undeveloped category, not to a sub-cat below the text. But that will take them to ALL the undeveloped articles, not just ones that match the selected category. That is, unless I divided up the Undeveloped category into separate categories... Input? Thanks.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 12:04, 23 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::::::::Definitely in the ballpark, and it will be easy to change if we do this with a template. Yes, making this work might require making an "Undeveloped" category under every category. BTW I'm having second thoughts about recommending red text, only because it's the default color that the wiki uses for links to new articles with no content. For example [[This link to a nonexistent article]] is red.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:26, 25 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::::OK on the red text. Perhaps a different color or more weight and/or points for all or part... I'll play around w/it some more and see what comes of it.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 12:07, 25 June 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ==Clean up and deletions, continued==
| |
| − | [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Category:Electrical Here] is an interim save of the Electrical page w/some additions. The {{Note1}} directly below the main title is a template. I removed the redundant(?) title 'Electrical" from the field where I inserted the template. If different browsers require there to be the second title in that location it can be easily added back.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | You will notice I put the link to the Undeveloped Electrical articles above and separate from the subcategories- to me this works well because of how visible it is. Earlier I had it down in the Subcategories and it kind of got lost among the couple other sub-cats.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For now, there's only one article added to the 'Undeveloped Electrical articles' page; there are more that haven't been added yet. I'm wondering if adding an (Electrical, or whatever) "articles needed" page might be useful? It could be added below the link to the undeveloped electrical articles and the 'Noteua' template changed to read "The articles below can be..." instead of "The Undeveloped articles below can be...". Or another different template could be developed for the "articles needed" . As you know nothing is in stone, and '''''any or all''''' can be changed if this isn't what's needed.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 03:37, 3 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Hey, I like it. Eye-catching. "Electrical articles needed" (or "Whatever articles needed") is a good idea. You don't have to do them all at once either. The key is to use a template-heavy strategy in any decisions, so it's easy to update. FYI you can link to categories like this: <nowiki>[[:Category:Engine]]</nowiki> makes [[:Category:Engine]]. Or, <nowiki>[[:Category:Engine|This is a link to the Engine category]]</nowiki> makes [[:Category:Engine|This is a link to the Engine category]]. See here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Linking_to_a_category .--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 11:24, 3 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Agreed on making it template heavy, I'll keep that in mind as I proceed. Thanks for the heads-up on linking categories. That'll come in handy!--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 12:21, 3 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::Jon, when you get a chance please take a look at the [[:Category:Electrical|Electrical category]] to see if there's any changes/additions/deletions/etc. to try out before I go on to the other categories. Do you think there's a use for adding a link to the non-electrical undeveloped articles, for instance? Something like:
| |
| − | :::{{Noteua}}
| |
| − | :::*[[:Category:Undeveloped Electrical articles|'''Undeveloped Electrical articles''']]
| |
| − | :::*[[:Category:Undeveloped articles|'''All undeveloped articles''']]
| |
| − | :::--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 07:06, 16 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ::::I like it. That's exactly what we're looking for: calls attention to the undeveloped articles, while strictly segregating them from the more polished content.--[[User:Jon|Jon]] 10:58, 16 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | :::::Good deal. The rest will follow in due course.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 17:21, 16 July 2012 (MDT)
| |
| − | ==Undeveloped articles==
| |
| − | Each category now has its own pair of undeveloped articles links at the top of each category page. They consist of one link to that category's Undeveloped articles, and another link to ALL undeveloped categories. Example:<br>
| |
| − | {{Noteua}}*[[:Category:Undeveloped Engine articles|'''Undeveloped Engine articles''']]
| |
| − | *[[:Category:Undeveloped articles|'''All undeveloped articles''']]
| |
| − | --[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 02:57, 6 January 2013 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Cavalier R&P ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Cobalt,
| |
| − | Really like your article on "swapping to a rack & pinion steering" and I'm wanting to do the same on a 40 Chrysler.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Would you please list the GM vehicles and years that use the same CTO R&P unit as the Cavalier in the article?
| |
| − | Are these known as the "J" cars ?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | (I read somewhere that they're all the same) Thanks in advance gatz271
| |
| − | :Hi gatz271. The Cav is a [http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/General_Motors_body_codes#J-Body_1982-.2703 '''J-body''']. Your best bet by far is to ask this question at the [http://www.hotrodders.com/ '''hotrodders.com forum'''] (it's connected to this wiki). After creating an account, you can post a question. I'd suggest you ask it in the [http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/suspension-brakes-steering/ '''Suspension - Brakes - Steering'''] forum. Good luck.--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 13:43, 28 January 2013 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == can you tell me about using casting # 376450 heads on a 350 block ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My block is a 010 (high nickel) 350 bored 030 over, with flat top pistons 268 cam and a
| |
| − | Stealth intake manifold topped with a 600 holly, what can I do if anything to a set of 305
| |
| − | Heads (casting number 376450) to make this work out well? I appreciate any help you can
| |
| − | Give...
| |
| − | :This is not an open forum, instead it's a data base. If you cannot locate enough info in the appropriate sections, your best bet is to ask this question at the hotrodders.com forum (it's affiliated w/this wiki). After creating an account, you can post a question. I'd suggest you ask it in the Engine forum. Good luck.==[[Special:Contributions/96.32.160.179|96.32.160.179]] 14:30, 1 December 2014 (MST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Article credits==
| |
| − | Its interesting that you have taken credit for an article that I wrote. Pretty sleazy thing to do if you ask me.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Mopar Tapered Axle Brake Upgrade was written by me. You had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Centerline
| |
| − | :I take exception to your accusation. I have "taken credit" for '''nothing''' that you have contributed. If you are worried about the credits that appear above the articles, I agree that minor contributions and/or edits of spelling grammar, formatting photos, etc. should NOT be accompanied by a credit on the same line with the main contributor- if at all. The way it is now, if a logged-in member so much as adds a period at the end of a sentence, their name appears on the same line with the writer of the article. I have '''numerous''' articles that '''''I''''' wrote that have other names besides mine on them for having done nothing more than add a category to the bottom of the page! But currently this is just how it's set up. In fact I have asked Jon to add an option to eliminate credit from appearing in an article when only minor edits have been done. So far, nothing has come of this request- but it's not like I haven't been aware of this being a problem and it's not like I haven't tried to do something about it.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :If you are not satisfied with my explanation, or if you are referring to something other than the credits that appear above your article, I respectfully request you respond here and give me a chance to look into it. But there's '''no way''' I have taken credit for your- or anyone else's- work. In fact I had to fight hard just to have another admin here on the Crankshaft Coalition wiki cease removing credit given to the originator of an article that the admin had "rewritten".--[[User:Cobalt327|Cobalt327]] 11:13, 16 January 2015 (MST)
| |
Your Privacy Choices