Talk:Reno
 |
This article was the Collaboration of the week between 25 August and 31 August. |
d00d! Nice start on this article. No wonder you're the King of Reno. -- (WT-en) Evan 08:41, 13 Aug 2003 (PDT)
Great start Sam! (WT-en) Majnoona
Video review
[edit]A video review added by an anonymous user who, according to the edit comment, "went here because of Wikivoyage". The link was removed from the main article in accordance with Project:External links:
- * Jim Kelley's Nugget Diner, 233 North Virginia Street (in the back of the Nugget casino), 356-3300. Open 24/7. Home of the Awful Awful, one of the best burgers in the state.
Virginia City
[edit]Could this section be expanded?
Love the banner!
[edit]When I first look into an article, and this is just me, I can't help but look at the banner. Reno's banner gives an astounding picture of the Reno arch, and iconic symbol of the city. I think it can be better, through. There's almost nothing but the arch, not many lights in the back. Just saying. No need to change it, but I was just suggesting. DAZ14LPA (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted:
You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, LPfi: so should we remove this file for now? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Am I wrong for thinking that since it's not viewable on the page, it doesn't matter much? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you can still see it on the map since it's written on the
|image=variable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- Right. I just don't think that's so important. I could be wrong. But anyway, I think this photo is likely stolen, so we can't use it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- So removing for now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you think it was "stolen"? Why was it marked to need OTRS verification? Am I blind when I see no reason, neither in the template nor in the edit summaries. It does not look like a professional photo to me. If it was found elsewhere, a link should have been provided. –LPfi (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I may be assuming good faith to a fault. I contested the speedy deletion nomination just above this one, and the reason given was that that photo had been used in publicity for the casino, hotel or whatever and therefore it was probably stolen. Please feel free to contest this speedy deletion nomination and make the nominator give an argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted the template addition with a complaint on the user talk page. OTRS isn't needed for regular own photos, and the user hasn't been active for twelve years on Commons. Giving a week to send letters is unreasonable for old files. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is it OK to just revert the template, rather than challenging the speedy deletion nomination and turning it into a regular deletion nomination? Is that within Commons rules? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know. I think not on principle, but adding a template with no justification is a hundred times less time-consuming than to start a DR by hand, refuting any justification the template adder might have had in mind, some of which might not be obvious. I'd treat such templates like we treat page creating vandalism: one should not delete articles on real places, but we do – until somebody tells me not to with a good reason or a credible threat. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is it OK to just revert the template, rather than challenging the speedy deletion nomination and turning it into a regular deletion nomination? Is that within Commons rules? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted the template addition with a complaint on the user talk page. OTRS isn't needed for regular own photos, and the user hasn't been active for twelve years on Commons. Giving a week to send letters is unreasonable for old files. –LPfi (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I may be assuming good faith to a fault. I contested the speedy deletion nomination just above this one, and the reason given was that that photo had been used in publicity for the casino, hotel or whatever and therefore it was probably stolen. Please feel free to contest this speedy deletion nomination and make the nominator give an argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Right. I just don't think that's so important. I could be wrong. But anyway, I think this photo is likely stolen, so we can't use it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, you can still see it on the map since it's written on the
- Am I wrong for thinking that since it's not viewable on the page, it doesn't matter much? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)