Talk:Morrow Plots

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

refrain

Oh, you can't throw shade on the corn. It'll die as sure as you're born. A solution has been found: the library's underground 'cause you can't throw shade on the corn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamfang (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

Is there any reason for making the image in the infobox a fixed size, rather than just letting each user's browser determine the appropriate size? Having a 387px image stretches out the infobox considerably, and if anyone needs to see the image at a larger size they can just click on it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all infobox templates fix the image size. If you don't specify something different, they set it at a default setting. The image is slightly larger than normal in order to display its contents in a way that the reader can see it. We should never require a reader to click through to "see" the image, only if they want to see much more detail. BMK (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted

I'm curious why my edits were reverted. I didn't change any text in the main article. All I did was update some references that were broken or outdated. Jlin (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked you to explain what you "updated", because your edit seemed to me to do considerably more than that. BMK (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my edits, which you can see here:

There were two references for the National Register of Historic Places entry that were pointing to the same URL (http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=781&ResourceType=Site), and it was not responding. I replaced it with a URL that is working (http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp/AssetDetail?assetID=18de2be2-92af-4c56-98e6-005424a0d975).
I replaced the reference "Illinois Farm Bureau "An Urbana Legend" Partners magazine (Spring 2009)", which had no URL, with a web page by the Farm Bureau with that article.
I replaced the reference "Historical markers on the site" with the Partners reference, because it has a photo of the historical marker, and readers can view the markers for themselves. I'm happy to put it back and augment it with the Partners reference instead.
I updated one of the URLs for the UIHistories Project, from http://uihistoriesproject.chass.illinois.edu/cgi-bin/cview?SITEID=1&ID=175&nf=, which is broken, to http://uihistories.library.illinois.edu/virtualtour/landmarks/morrowplots/, and I added more metadata around the reference.
In the External Links section:
- I replaced the URL of the first one, since it was broken.
- I removed the second one, since it was duplicating a reference.
- I removed the third one, since it was broken.

If you think I removed too much, I can certainly add those back. But I think the corrections and updates are still valuable. Jlin (talk)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think your changes are fine, so I will revert back to your edit. BMK (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BMK! Jlin (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]