User talk:Doncram/Archive 27

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your rationale at

@Xender Lourdes:, I'm glad you liked it. :) You did good work to find those three sources, now used in the article. I have to agree the article could have been dropped and a new separate article could be started, but I have a strong preference at AFD to support contributors and expand or transform their work where possible, rather than deleting it. And sometimes I have been accused of co-opting/twisting others' arguments, oops! :) Thanks for the compliment of your visit . doncram 16:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood :-) I have added support to your proposal at the Afd. Well done, I should say again. See ya around.

talk

) 03:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and AFD closed Keep, with article needing rename and revision though. Renamed, revised some. Done? doncram 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's true, I have made request at

Hello! Doncram, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The draft was not accepted by AFC process, and no longer exists as a draft. Instead it is now in mainspace: List of courthouses. --doncram 23:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This month:

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! You are welcome to participate the discussion at

Hello, Doncram. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doncram, just letting you know that I've posted a motion in response to the amendment request you posted. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a few of your edits popping up on my watchlist relating to NRHP articles, and I just realized the topic ban was eventually lifted. Forgive me, but I also snooped around in your contributions and it appeared you were trying to compile a list of NRIS-only articles you created on one of your user pages. The code that I wrote to determine how many articles were created by each editor also outputs a list of the article titles. I've included the list of yours in the collapsible box below:

I also noticed you were looking at how to get NRIS-only articles in each state. While I don't think it's exactly what you're looking for, the NRHPstats script now has the ability to display only NRIS-only articles in each county list (as well as only the unarticled, unillustrated, stubs, etc.), so that may be even better than what you're looking for. If you add the script to your vector.js, it will display a yellow box above each county list upon loading the page with all that information.

Though we've had our differences in the past, I hope that with all the time that has gone by, all of that can be a thing of the past, and I look forward to your re-integration into the project. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. (And noting here that for other purposes, use of category intersection tool

wp:catscan3 application i promoted here and i documented (at toollabs? at wikimedia?) is gone, rats.) --doncram

07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I hope this isn't bad timing, but I've blanked

Hi, this is not bad timing at all. Thank you for noticing the out-of-place passage. It was left there by an editing error and should simply be removed. I reply more fully in this diff at the copyright problems page. BTW, I will also do some more development of the article--about a house that is relatively more interesting than many others--now that you brought it to my attention. --doncram 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Your removal of the text there has indeed solved the problem. However, in general, please don't remove the copyvio template from articles, even if you think the matter is resolved (removing it is part of a process that has other parts too). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That it is completely resolved--after other steps by Justlettersandnumbers, including revdel request, thanks-- is now confirmed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 May 17 where it had been relisted. --doncram 19:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! Even though we didn't agree on every detail at the article Talk Page discussion, I must say that the state of the article has improved a lot! Thanks for your contibutions, Doncram! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

[3] --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. agljones(talk)14:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oheka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 09:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

agljones(talk)14:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That was regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924#Editors Rocknrollmancer and doncram which was conducted, closed and archived before I even knew about it. There was perhaps some decent advice about communication there, and discussion of unfounded accusations of racism (for which one commented they would block in the future if repeated). I don't know what the editor really thinks, but if they're reading here: I never intended to use "racist"-type language (and never did use any, as far as I and others can tell), and I hope you can just believe me and drop that line of thinking and move on. Certainly the accusations rather undercut real communication about content and real education about Wikipedia policies and practices in articles.

(There was also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive910#User talk page harassment and general incivility, unrelated except for some discussion of use of potentially "chilling" language like "surveil", expressed by brianhe, and answered well enough by RnRM. But why not avoid language that unnecessarily pushes buttons for some? "Monitoring" is an accepted action and term.) --doncram 18:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doncram
this is just to let you know I took out something you added here from (I'm guessing) the List of naval battles: I think someone was having us on. I've put an explanation here if you wish to check. regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Your discussion section at Talk:List_of_naval_battles#Battle_of_Tourville suffices well to raise the question about whether this is a battle. Perhaps I should have raised a question there instead of adding usage of the source by this diff, but at least my edit summary was clear so someone more informed could act on it. Thanks again. --doncram 23:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a small, technical point which IMO is not worth bringing up at the arbitration clarifications page. If anyone cares, discuss here first please. I interpret the current edit restriction on "no new NRHP articles" to be created by me in mainspace (which is a relaxation of previous restriction on no new articles) not to include any restriction on creating disambiguation pages, even if the disambiguation page includes all or mostly NRHP-listed places. For example,

Despite a bizarre finding in the arbitration case three years ago on disambiguation pages that might seem to relate, there was and is no concern by NRHP-interested editors. I think it appeared to be an issue to some non-NRHP-interested, relatively uninvolved editors, because of some long-ago manufactured contention at a couple disambiguation pages. (And it was trumped up into a "finding" at the arbitration because sanctions were being discussed and yet there were no findings yet...the finding itself was mistaken IMO but it didn't really matter.) The disambiguation pages where contention happened were not in fact controversial and no regular NRHP-interested editors would ever have had any problem with them, AFAIK. I can't easily explain in polite terms why they became points of contention.

And there is no restriction on my creating disambiguation pages. So, for the record, I am saying i will feel free to create new NRHP-related disambiguation pages where they are needed, without asking for a clarification/modification of my editing restriction (which I truly believe does not apply). I generally trust that no one will object, and this is just a formal notice at a place where interested parties will see. I am trying not to cost wasted time and attention by anyone. Again please discuss here if you see differently, and a formal clarification request can be launched if necessary. --doncram 19:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Seek clarification, Doncram. You've pushed boundaries before and got into trouble, so why risk it this time? - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your message about Stella Maris Church--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you again for your contributions. We need more about the Cayman Islands! (That was about this diff and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Maris Church, Cayman Brac where I !voted Keep and which closed Keep.) --doncram 20:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  Draft:List of courthouses in the United States page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

Applying petscan for categories "Articles sourced only to NRIS" and "Connecticut" with depth set = 2 yields just 6 properties, and you can step up their categories and find a two-step route to "Connecticut" as a category. With depth set = 3, it currently yields 52 which all seem to be Connecticut ones (from checking many of them). This agrees with

Hello Doncram. It appears that the Niagara Public School article has been nominated for deletion again (by Cordless Larry). I thought you may want to know.--Tataryn (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. You seem to be upset with what is going on at the Jayne Joso article. I just reviewed everything and part of the problem here is that nobody who is not entangled with the content has tried to interact with her, and it is really hard for conflicted editors to focus on the COI issues when there is also a content disagreement underway. I just tried to engage her, and hopefully that communication will go OK.

I would be happy to talk with you about how we generally try to work with editors who have an apparent COI and the content they have generated, if you like. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You recently used AWB to add bare references to 60+ articles which you had never visited and which you presumably don't even know point to something useful. Do not leave articles in main space that have incomplete references. Only add these references if 1. you are sure they exist, and 2. you have pulled some kind of information from them. If you want to "try" links to nomination forms, the proper place to do that is a sandbox or in preview mode. By adding these references, you have caused the bot to de-tag these as NRIS-only, when clearly they have not been expanded at all. Indeed they are arguably in worse shape than they were before your edits, now with blanks for years and formatting issues galore.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not all true, and you don't have to lecture at me. Maybe you don't know that trying links to nomination forms the most straight-forward way, using this, the way I have been working the last several weeks, is usually not working now. I keep getting a time out error. While if you enter a reference into an article, and then follow the link, it works. It may be temporary or it may be another change at NPS.

I got frustrated with trying again and again, so I figured out this instead. I started a 3-step process to improve a set of articles where NRHP registration documents are almost all going to be available -- they have been for about 10 that I checked. They're all the "NRIS-only" articles in Iowa that have been marked by your custom system since November 2013, or approximately that (what I could identify using categories, which the custom system doesn't help with). For Iowa, and 2013 or before: NRHP docs usually available. They're indexed from User:Doncram/Iowa pre-Nov2013 NRISonly all authors. It is a limited set, and they are extremely low-traffic articles.

Perhaps I could have labelled the articles explicitly as "Under construction", but I used an edit summary indicating this is "pass 1" through them, to convey that another pass is coming. And I could have avoided a red error showing about invalid accessdate by putting in today's date, but that would have seemed like misrepresenting. Anyhow I am marching through them, and it is going 10x or 15x faster.

In a few days, I will go back and remove any incomplete references remaining, if I haven't completed them all out and improved all the articles. I can do that easily using AWB.

I understand the NRIS-only-marking-bot runs only occasionally. Did you choose to run the NRIS-only-marking bot because you saw that I was doing this, or is the coincidence just bad luck? --doncram 06:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now that these edits were made earlier today; I didn't check that when I wrote the initial message here. Had I noticed that, I probably would have been a little less blunt. I have had some friends in town for the past week and haven't made any edits during that time, but I just signed back on tonight, and since it had been a few days since I ran the bot, I ran it as soon as I got on. When the output showed tons of articles needing untagging, I investigated (as I normally do, even for the to-be-tagged ones, e.g. this one showed up as needing to be tagged but turned out to be a copyvio) and found they were mostly coming from you.

As far as the actual articles, I see now in your contributions that as I was leaving this message, you began going through them, indicative of the unfortunate timing here. Acknowledging that, I still think it would have been better--especially given that the tags on the article relate specifically to refs--to simply add the refs to the userpage you linked above and go from there rather than add them to each individual article. Then you would still have quick access to the forms and none of this would have transpired.

I apologize for the unfortunate timing of my message, interrupting your work in progress, but I stick by my comments that the edits were ill-advised. You and I both remember that bot-like edits and incomplete information in mainspace was one large factor that led to the whole kerfuffle years ago. I would imagine that both of us do not want to go down that road again.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your better tone. I didn't just start going through them though. I started right away when I finished the AWB run, with this edit. In the 3rd one I started on,

Joseph W. Royer, had a lot missing from the article on him, no one had used NRIS data to find his NRHP-listed works, and I chased down omissions and needed wikilinks and so on at a number of articles on his works. And a couple of his works were courthouses that needed to be added to the list of courthouses in the U.S. draft list-article. Looping through all that took a long time, but it makes a lot of good, needed connections. One cannot do that kind of good work with drafts not in mainspace, by the way. Then I took notes some on the list, where I thought more of them were going to mine in fact, and considered inviting a couple editors who had started articles, like farragut(?) who has done a lot in Iowa. And resumed. On the second one then I saw the NRIS-only tag was missing on one, and my Talk page was lighting up. That's all for tonight. --doncram

06:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not overthink this, and let's not undermine improvement that was going on. --doncram 18:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Further question: could the NRIS-only bot be adapted to do one run through the NRIS-onlies and put in a temporary admin category for articles started by me only, e.g. category:d-start. That would enable me, with petscan, to select just "my" NRIS-only articles in a state, or just "my" ones that are bridges or octagon houses or whatever, and I could remove the category as I go through them. Or could I have a new list of all of "my" articles, but sorted by state (and perhaps by article number so the oldest are first within state). Subsetting by bridges etc is useful but subsetting by state is most important, as there are non-Focus state-specific sources and also state-specific MPS's.--doncram 18:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Progress page checks for NRIS-only status by checking the categories, not the tag itself, so it is possible to make a second "under construction" template similar to {{Under construction}} (but with NRIS-only specific text) that would add the under construction category as well as the NRIS-only categories, and that would still allow the Progress page tallies to correctly display their status and prevent the bot from untagging them. Even though it is possible, I do not prefer this method since the bot would still report the under construction articles as needing to be untagged (since they would be in the category but have more than one reference), but when it went to actually untag them, it wouldn't find the NRIS-only template, so it would report an error. If you are planning to expand the number of articles you're working on at one time, this would clutter up the bot output with many false positives. I would have to modify the code to ignore pages with this new template, and frankly I just don't want to do that.

• If you must insist on editing the articles in mainspace rather than just copying the empty reference to your userspace page, why not add the link as an external link with {{NRHP url}} rather than a reference? Then none of the NRIS-only information is lost at all, and you still have quick access to the document, which you can use to expand the article. You can convert the external link into a reference when you make your way to that article in the batch.

• About the articles tagged when they already have multiple references but none inline, that is by design. Those articles still need to be fixed by moving the sources inline, and having the tag alerts NRHP-specific editors to them. Most of them also have a tag for needing inline references, so they get put in both categories to maximize attention. It would be very difficult for the bot to recognize when an article has this type of list at the end and refrain from tagging them NRIS-only, but it does output a list of long NRIS-only articles ("long" is defined to be more than 325 bytes of prose). Articles on this list are more likely to include multiple references than the full list of 4000+ articles; the list currently has 1188 items, about a quarter of the total.

• Finally, for articles created by you, organized by state, I will work on adapting the code that I used to extract all of yours to sort them by state. I'll post back here with the results if I can get it to work.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not immediately absorbing all of what you just said. But about the NRIS-only label being applied to articles where we know its label is inaccurate, I think that's just wrong. It would be easy to classify still them as "NRIS-only" where NRIS-only is defined to mean that the only inline citation is from NRIS, but it is wrong to knowingly display a false label, that "This article relies entirely upon a single source, the National Register Information System (NRIS) database or one of its mirrors, and to use a bot to re-impose that even if a completely knowledgeable adult person removes it because it is obviously false. Consider Ely's Stone Bridge article version up to23 June 2016. All but the last sentence appears to me to be completely sourced from two named sources, including the specific page number in the main one, that are given formatted as external links. NationalRegisterBot mislabelled it in this edit of 18 November 2013. I think that's insulting to the original editors and offputting to the public readership and potential editors. I don't see why editors using common sense and AWB should be prevented from zipping through the 1200 and retagging them more appropriately.

• Thanks for using your code to do give me the report. The "NRIS-only" pages created by Doncram, sorted by state, Dudemanfellabra's script are at: User:Doncram/NRIS-onlyDoncramByState25June2016. Thanks! --doncram 03:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Update: All 69 Iowa articles (listed at
  wp:NRHPprogress page somehow (perhaps just as a footnote to the NRIS-only total count in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Progress#State totals section, noting that the total is reduced temporarily by number-in-category articles where expansion is in progress). --doncram
  20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I'll start with the AWB run in a day or 2 or 3. Actually i'll plan to use admin category Category:NRHP former NRIS-only articles undergoing expansion to navigate to them and to track their number. There are currently 0 (which updates occasionally) in the category. --doncram 21:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for ignoring literally my entire comment above, in which I specifically laid out why you should not continue with a second batch in this same manner. If you absolutely refuse not to add links to the nomination documents in main space, please do so as external links so NRIS-only status is not affected. Do not remove the NRIS-only template without having added information from the nomination document. When you get to the articles in due time, then you can convert the link to a reference and extract information from it. Nothing should be added to the Progress page just to appease your editing habits, so the cleanup category will not be necessary.

As for the articles you've "expanded" (which means in a few cases just adding the nomination reference to the line that says "____ was added to the National Register of Historic Places in ____", and in one where you just added the built date, both of which were already covered by NRIS anyway, as well as a few cases of just copying and pasting text from the nomination document and adding quotes), I've gone through the first 20 making minor edits. One major thing that I noticed is you have a propensity to leave the {{rp}} template all over the place. Please if you do not cite a page within the document, remove this template since it just leaves a colon after the reference with no number.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I know what you meant to say first was "Great job, doncram!" for tackling the Iowa NRIS-onlies, and for bringing the number from 75 as of 18 June to 8 as of 16 June. It's super you took on the 42 started by others and the 27 started by you for good reasons but when NRHP docs were not available, out of 69 pre-Nov 2013 ones! And I really like X and Y and Z articles. You seemed to have left a few typos and might not have finished out a couple as far as you meant to, though. Do you mind if I point those out?

And my reply is: Thanks! It wasn't just me, User:Farragutful did a number of them, too. And I see now that I left St. Luke's Methodist Church (Monticello, Iowa) unfinished, after expanding it a lot, and I'll address that, and I'd be happy to learn of any others to fix up better. :) If there's anything easy to fix by AWB, like if I left some unfinished rp templates around, do let me know. :) --doncram 04:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's fine that you choose to go through some or all of them. I will try to follow your edits and either appreciate what you did or clean up after you, too. :) I was aware that I made minimal change to a number of Iowa NRHP articles that were started by persons other than me, although I also considerably expanded some of those. I believe I more positively add material to all the articles I originally created.

Do you mean to criticize the use of quotes for some reason? Quoting from an NRHP nomination document is an absolutely fine way to explain why a property was deemed to justify NRHP registration. Often the writing in an NRHP nomination document is very good and is worth quoting because the wording is so good. Sometimes the reasoning for significance seems dubious and it is better to quote the document's assertions rather than to reword them, as if they are fact, into the voice of Wikipedia.

About your edits, I haven't gone through them all, but please, yourself, don't use "minor" on edits that remove the NRHP reference or otherwise are more serious than the minor fix of removing the rp template. Great that you noticed and removed that nearly-invisible template in several cases. As you note, it shows just a colon. Update: I ran AWB to find and remove the rp template wherever it was not used (11 pages).

It's a bit tedious for you to remove the NRHP reference, though. In this edit just now, I restored one that you removed, and added some from the ref. I believe I felt a bit stuck on that article when I came across it, because of contradictions between its text and the NRHP document, and I see I just left it. Sure, I do not intend to merely add an NRHP reference without specifically using it. By the way, though, that article was one where the NRIS-only tag very clearly did not apply, because the article very obviously was not from just NRIS.

Also, in this edit you left an edit summary that in this context here seems to suggest that I merely did something to confound the NRIS-only tagging bot, that I did not add value to that article, when in fact I did. It was not an article that I created, but I found and used two good sources by googling and by going through the area's MPS document, so I was in fact able to develop the article. In this unusual case, where there are NRHP photos available but not the NRHP text, your transforming the reference into an external link seems like a good solution, so despite your edit summary I do thank you for that.

Again, it's fine for you to review the articles in the batch, and I do welcome improvements to the articles. Feel free to use the Talk pages of the articles to make comments specifically about them. --doncram 01:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious to see the link to the "(consistent with naming policy for U.S. places)" standard used for this move:

Hi. A prompt for my making moves like that is that editors have repeatedly stripped location information off disambiguation pages. Putting the city name into the title and updating the dab page is like nailing it down, so they can't remove it again!

But there are many cases where there are two places named like Jefferson County Courthouse in the same state. Usually where the second one is in the same county, though perhaps a different city (e.g. Jackson County Courthouse (Bellevue, Iowa)), though there must be cases where a former courthouse is no longer in the same county. One of several examples where there are two current same-county courthouses: Jackson County Courthouse (Independence, Missouri) and Jackson County Courthouse (Kansas City, Missouri). There are many more examples where there is a current courthouse and a former courthouse in the same county where both have articles already. (And IMO there are possibly-notable former courthouses in many or even most or even nearly all U.S. counties; notability depends on whether anyone chooses to dig up old sources or not.) :)

And I do think that using (City, State) in disambiguation is consistent with USPLACE. USPLACE rules that "City, State" is to be used even when it is somewhat redundant/unnecessary, for clarity and for comfort of readers. It is consistent to apply that principle to using "City" in addition to "State" where relevant, although I grant what's explicit in USPLACE is mostly about when "City, State" is preferred over "City". In practice we have been very consistent about using "City, State" rather than just "State" for houses, theatres, churches, city halls, bridges and almost all other kind of thing besides courthouses. Even when the name of the thing has some suggestion of place in it, like

Fulton County Courthouse (Atlanta, Georgia)

eliminates that.

Is your point that USPLACE is not explicit enough about that? Maybe I should change what edit summary I use, or should I make an effort to change what's written at USPLACE (that is daunting though). I have jotted some notes that I will put at User:Doncram/USPLACE notes. Cheers, --doncram 21:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was mostly going by the general "simpler is better" disambiguation guidelines, and if there is a consensus on this, then that is fine, perhaps link to the discussion that established it, or whatever works. But it's true that the "City, State" guideline at

WP:USPLACE doesn't appear to have any guidance on buildings...or if it exists, it's buried so deep I didn't find it after reading that section twice. Montanabw^(talk)

01:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't disambiguate more than needed. Your move of Martin County Courthouse (Minnesota) was completely unnecessary. I undid it. Jonathunder (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is one point of view that including the location of the place, i.e. the "Fairmont" in

wp:USPLACE consensus policy say about it. I presume that if there were no other Fairmonts in the world, you would want Fairmont, Minnesota moved to Fairmont

. Proponents of USPLACE say that "City, State" is one unit, a place. It is how Americans speak of places. Using "Fairmont, Minnesota" in the courthouse article name conveys super-clearly that the disambiguator is a place, and that the courthouse is located there. You might differ in the extent you believe there is ambiguity of using "Minnesota" alone, but IMHO it raises questions for in the back of the minds of readers:

• "where is it?" if they assume it is one courthouse building,
• "oh, is this a place that spans across more than one town?" if they notice that only the state is used in disambiguation, like they may know is done for rivers and railroad branches and trails,
• "is this a single courthouse or is it a courthouse system?" if they suppose that not giving a location is because it may be in multiple locations.

I think it is simpler to use the disambiguator that is unambiguous.

I don't get why there are some editors that think courthouses are different, somehow, than all other types of buildings. Or why the editors who have some association with courthouse articles are different than editors of all others. Because the practice of using "City, State" in disambiguation is uniformly accepted for houses, railroad stations, community centers, Masonic buildings, what-have-you.

By the way, I just developed that courthouse article a bit... it is still stubby but not nearly as stubby as it has been for many years. And I won't move this one back to the "City, State" format, while I do plan to proceed with other moves. --doncram 18:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop the mass moves of articles. There is no need for your last move of Steele County Courthouse (Minnesota). If you keep moving without discussion, much less consensus, you may be blocked. Jonathunder (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I did anything against a consensus (if you disagree, please show where). There were two inquiries here, and I responded to both, and by your last note I see that you continue to disagree.

Is your objection basically limited to courthouses in Minnesota? Or articles where you have uploaded a photo? If you want disambiguation by (Minnesota) for those, I would be happy to leave those be, and not have a larger discussion.

However, I am ready to organize a larger discussion, perhaps at USPLACE or perhaps at Wikiproject disambiguation. I will stop with such editing for now, anyhow.

On a different note, do you have any photos of murals by Franz E. Rohrbeck, or could you possibly try to take some sometime? His courthouse murals were in years like 1906, well before the cutoff (1923? 1928?) where copyright issues come in. It would be great to illustrate the new article on him and the Grant County Courthouse article and others. --doncram 18:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I first noticed you moved a single article on my watchlist and came here, where I see other editors telling you this kind of move is unneeded. After more came up (yes, I watch many Minnesota things) I checked your contributions and found you've been moving a huge number of articles. Mass moves from one style of title to another are generally seen as disruptive. Don't do that. Get consensus first. Jonathunder (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you plan to discuss this in some kind of central location before proceeding. I don't think I've seen Rohrbeck's murals, but I'll watch for them. Thank you for the link. Jonathunder (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is only one Steele County in Minnesota, so that seems sufficient. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Argh, lost everything I wrote in an edit conflict". You don't have to lose what you wrote - you can scroll down in the edit window and copy it to the clipboard. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that usually works, thanks. That's an edit summary of mine, right? I vaguely recall it. I don't know what happened, but I must have lost the window, had a computer crash, or something else where I think what I wrote really was lost. Where are you talking about? Maybe I would have more energy now, on whatever topic that was. :) --doncram 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it was a comment you made in the talk section of the draft page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Largoplazo (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Largoplazo, I think it's a bit rude for you to nominate this for deletion, when it does indicate importance (perhaps more subtly than you like), it has four or more sources, I was actively editing it, and it was marked "under construction". I contest the deletion of course. --doncram 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	for your heroic rescue of Jayne Joso E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Parksville, New York requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

I have no idea what this is about. Did I once create a redirect from Parksville, New York, which needs to be deleted to make way for someone's article? I don't recall and cannot see any contributions by me at the draft or current page. --doncram 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

from Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1st ani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_is_being_caused_at_multiple_AFDs_by_HappyValleyEditor

2nd ani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_is_being_caused_at_multiple_AFDs_by_HappyValleyEditor

3rd ani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#Exhausted

believe me it is a long sequence of events!

If you want to know more feel free to email me. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks, my name appeared in a hatted passage in first of those, that's why I couldn't find it by searching directly. I will look at other items now, thanks. --doncram 12:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Because someone thinks it needs sections? I just moved it into mainspace, to PPM America, Inc.. It's a notable topic, and the article is sourced. --doncram 15:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You renamed

Yes I did. I had created the article a long time ago at the "(STATE)" type name in 2009, at the current name in "(City, State)" format, but another editor moved it in 2010 to "(State)" with an edit summary asserting that was "better". I came back to it to add the NRHP nomination document now available and to develop it a bit. It was the last article of that type (created by me, having NRIS-only tag for some time, a courthouse having "(STATE)" disambiguation).

I hope you will be open, in a big common discussion, to considering what is best for readers and editors, besides on "shorter is always best" grounds. For example, browse in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles and you will see that in almost all other article names where a place is used for disambiguation, it is by "(City, State)". Not saying I have special rights or anything, but I created the majority of those 4,000 or so disambiguation pages, and have edited in virtually all of them, so I am familiar with how disambiguation has been done. And, in my opinion, when using a U.S. place as a parenthetical disambiguation, it is best to use "(City, State)" to avoid loading in other questions for the readers and editors. That way, the disambiguator is unambiguously a place, and also the location of the place is given. (To me, Hazlehurst, Georgia is a place ... I don't happen to really know where it is, but I know I can look it up, and I don't have the reaction of "where is it?" which I would have if I was only told the place is in Georgia or in Jeff Davis County, Georgia.)

For example, browsing in that category, I find my way to Antlers Hotel. There is only one of them in each of five states, but the disambiguation used is "(City, State)". (You may notice that it wasn't the case for the Colorado one, which I just moved. I didn't move it to make the point, it was a mistake actually: I read the dab page to think it was located at just "Antlers Hotel", and I know the topic is so obscure no one of them is primary usage, so no one should be at that name, and moved it while thinking that the dab was at "Antlers Hotel (disambiguation)". I was tricked by the dab entry being improper, with the actual page name being hidden by a pipelink.) So please look at other examples. --doncram 04:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am open to discussion and I haven't reverted any of your changes. I understand that many places need a city and state to uniquely identify something. However, within each state, each county has a unique name, so the state alone is sufficient to identify it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comment, though, kind of denies my point. Can you see that something more than the very shortest disambiguator required to make a unique name is preferable, ever? Take Arcade Hotel, for example, where there are 3 places, each in a different state, and no two cities have the same name. Using just "(City)" for any one or two or three or zero, and using just "(State)" for the others, would provide unique identifiers. Actually "(Florida)", "(Ohio)", and "(Hartsville)" are the three shortest disambiguators. What's used in practice is "(City, State)" for each, which is longer than required and which unambiguously gives a location for each one, and which has the property that each ones' name is not a function of the others'. Is that okay or not by you? Also note that I have taken the trouble to add additional info that each of these are NRHP-listed (as shorthand for "historic" and "notable") because I think that helps readers differentiate between an Arcade Hotel they might know is very modern or nondescript, say, vs. one of these. And because I think it helps to suggest that some notability is required to get listed on a dab page, in order to dissuade readers from adding other Arcade Hotels that they know of. Some editors would prefer to strip out the NRHP mentions, but no one seems to oppose using "(City, State)" here, AFAIK. What type of rules would you prefer here? And what's different about courthouses, in your view? I do appreciate your being willing to discuss. --doncram 16:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read that whole message, but Arcade Hotel does need the city and state, but

Fulton County Courthouse (Atlanta, Georgia), for example, does NOT need "Atlanta" because there is only one Fulton County in Georgia. Similarly, each state has only one county with a given name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

21:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does Arcade Hotel (Springfield, Ohio) need both city and state? Take your time. --doncram 21:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

With the present Wikipedia articles, it doesn't. But it might some day - there could be two or more Arcade Hotels in the same state or even the same city. But that is NOT the case with counties within a state - there will never be two counties in the same state with the same name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• You are "pre-disambiguating" then, anticipating that there might be a future Arcade Hotel in Ohio where city, state will work to differentiate it, i.e. it will not be in Springfield. (BTW, in the past USNAMES debates, "pre-disambiguating" was a negative loaded term used by those who preferred shorter-if-unique, e.g. just "Albany". While city-n-staters were saying "Albany" is not satisfactorily a place (it begs "where?"); we Americans use "Albany, New York" as one unit and accept that as a place. I say (Ohio) is not satisfactory, as it begs "where?", too.)
• There will likely be more Fulton County Courthouses in Georgia that get wikipedia articles, though. The 1911-14-built
  Fulton County Courthouse (Atlanta, Georgia) is the third Fulton County courthouse ([4]
  ). I don't know if #1 and #2 were in Atlanta or not, but suppose they were. I would prefer to name them like Fulton County Courthouse (Atlanta, Georgia, 1853), if 1853 was a built date. If they weren't then "Fulton County Courthouse (Elsewhere, Georgia)". There could be a new courthouse built too, I suppose, perhaps in Atlanta, perhaps not. Using (Atlanta, Georgia) is "pre-disambiguating" against possibility of others past & future not in Atlanta.
• Atlanta has always been a rapidly growing city, and maybe it always dominated Fulton County, so maybe it is different than elsewhere. Graham County Courthouse (Safford, Arizona) (the 5th in county, purpose-built has article) pre-disambiguates it from Graham County Courthouse (Solomonville, Arizona) (the 3rd in county, purpose-built, not yet an article). Lots of new big courthouses were purpose-built upon move of county seat. Besides in Atlanta, a general practice of using City, State pre-disambiguates for that. How is that different than pre-disambiguating Arcade Hotels? And train stations and theatres and houses which also "pre-disambiguate" by city & state.
• Pre-disambiguating might or might not work, the next Arcade Hotel might be in the same city. I like using "Springfield, Ohio" to also convey where it is. Using "Atlanta, Georgia" tells the reader that Atlanta is in Fulton County...most Americans would not know that, but once conveyed, we'd get the right idea that this is a big (in fact huge) urban courthouse, not a dinky county one.
• Also, why not convey the official county seat, e.g. now Safford, Arizona, as part of county courthouse name, even if there was not going to be an article on the Solomonville one from when it was county seat, to differentiate vs. ones in other states? The county seat has nice property that it is county-associated, while "Arizona" is not. It's not surprising but still interesting to know the county seat is Atlanta, not Milton, Georgia to the north or Chattahoochee Hills, Georgia to the south.
• Do these reasons start to add up? --doncram 22:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There will be other courthouses in Fulton County, Georgia, but they are NOT LIKELY to be outside Atlanta. My point is that the county names within each state are all different, so giving the city in the title is superfluous. Having short is not necessarily what I'm after, but rather not putting in things that are not needed. Only in the rare case that a county seat is changed does the city name serve any purpose. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think it's quite likely Fulton County could open courthouses north and south of Atlanta. It already has Superior Court clerk facilities open to the public at a North services center (still in Atlanta) and a South Services center in College Park, Georgia. Why wouldn't it expand to satellite locations, like some other big county courts have done? For example Pinellas County, Florida (with county seat in Clearwater) has a branch courthouse in St. Petersburg. (I find this out at County seat#U.S. counties with more than one county seat. (note to self: consider "County seat#Other variations" in the next section for hints to expansion of List of courthouses in the United States for Louisiana, CT, MA, Alaska. E.g. search on "parish courthouse" for Louisiana.)) As Atlanta is dominant with a huge central courthouse and annex, perhaps it will only have smaller branches, but in other counties there can be relatively equal dual courthouses. I've long known about Jackson County, Missouri having two county seats (both with NRHP-listed courthouses) but I didn't know about 34 other dual seat counties listed there. These multi-courthouse counties constitute more than 1 percent of U.S.'s 3,144 counties or county-equivalents. --doncram 22:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to see you moving courthouse articles again without discussing the move first. Please don't. Jonathunder (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but you objected to mass moves, on July 5. I subsequently noticed the

Jeff Davis County Courthouse (Hazlehurst, Georgia)

one at "(Georgia)" name and a couple similar others on my work-list of NRHP articles started by me which were NRIS-only (so not developed by anyone else, and very low-traffic, and not likely on anyone else's watchlist, and I felt some "ownership" about them, and it sort of puzzled me that they were at the "wrong" names in my view). "Ownership" is not all bad. I chose to develop those articles somewhat sooner rather than later by adding now-available NRHP documents, and I chose to move those few (four when I look carefully, plus one started by Lvklock that was similar and that I happened to come across and develop). That's it, there are no more of that type. Also, when I look carefully, I see in fact that all 5 were created at a "(City, State)" name originally and were later moved by a couple of editors (who no doubt moved others, too), so in fact my moves were all returns to original naming of articles where I was the only "substantial" editor (albeit the development by me was not very much). I don't consider these to be mass moves, and there are no more candidates of this type, either. I will agree again that a policy discussion is worthwhile, and preferable.

But it is not at all trivial to start a productive RFC-type discussion on U.S. place-naming policy; there have been huge trainwrecks in that area previously. In advance, and towards improving the future attempt, Jonathunder, would you be willing to try to be a bit open, too, and to answer the same questions I put to Bubba73, just above? Especially getting to what you think is different about courthouses, or do you think the prevailing naming practice in disambiguation of U.S. places is all wrong everywhere. I would appreciate that. To you and Bubba73, I will try to be open to understanding some distinction about courthouses, if there is one (which I don't see yet, so I am a bit hesitant about trying to summarize the reasoning on the "(state)" side as part of an RFC opening). --doncram 17:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have recently bumped into this

MOS:DABRL. By the way, you may or may not be aware that you can check on what links to a redlink by clicking on the redlink, which brings you to edit mode as if you are going to create the article, then hit "What links here". And there is supposed to be one and only one bluelink per dab entry. The Tokimeki page is not fully compliant with these. Some would also complain that many items are only "partial matches", i.e. they are word combinations that may use the term Tokimeki but no one would use Tokimeki alone to refer to them. Partial matches might be okay in a "See also" section. It's a fact that monitoring the compliance of dab pages is an activity that attracts interest of some very literalistic (is that a word?) editors, for better or for worse. When IMHO some flexibility, like allowing for a footnote to give a source to support the presence of a redlink oughta be allowed. Hope this helps. --doncram

15:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to tell you this earlier but I have been busy elsewhere: even though you pinged me I did not get notified. And on another note, since you seem to be involved in work on couthouses you maybe interested in this:

ping

me

Oh no, not another tribble! Yep.

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!

My way of acknowledging those editors who stand out above the fray. Being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles, or save worthy articles from AfD for the benefit of the project is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to make editing an enjoyable experience for so many others. Atsme📞📧 21:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Now, what was the trouble with tribbles, anyhow? I recall there was some issue with them. :) --doncram 21:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Now don't let this concern you - the Tribble I gave you is digital. 😜 The_Trouble_with_Tribbles - there's a WP article for just about everything, except Fulbright scholars in Pakistan. *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a concern. That was about an infobox created by another editor, in a Draft-space page that I moved to mainspace. --doncram 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't followed the AfD discussion since I was sure of the outcome, and I'm not sure how interested you are on the respective subject, but I thought I'd explain that your proposed merge would not have been a good idea, since the 2 stations would be at the end of 2 different branches of the M3 line - close by, but not the same. The fact that the next station to Carrefour was marked as Preciziei shows that the author had no real information on the subject - the split between the branches is planned at Păcii (the station before Preciziei, currently), and there will definitely be more stations between Păcii and Carrefour.--Strainu (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. --doncram 00:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the nomination, User:Largoplazo. --doncram 23:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the external link at the bottom is not showing properly. A glitch, perhaps? GAB^gab 01:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:GeneralizationsAreBad, for promoting the article and your AFC work. The glitch was my omission of "http://" in the URL, just now fixed. Thanks! --doncram 01:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J.F. Reynolds is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.F. Reynolds until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you find files that are in Candleabracadabra's user space? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bubba73:, They're here in Candleabracadabra's User space. I recorded that into User:Doncram/Batch-Georgia-plus, too. --doncram 02:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I look at some of those and wonder why they were deleted, e.g.

User:Candleabracadabra/Lumpkin County Jail. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

03:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the deletions were justified. --doncram 03:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved Lumpkin County Jail to articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of them, but

• Old Camden County Courthouse
• Phoenix Hotel (Waycross, Georgia)

now exist in article space. I'll do:

• • Glennwanis Hotel done.

I'm having no luck accessing the NRHP documents now, so I won't develop any more of them tonight. Thanks for keeping going! --doncram 03:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes they are available - sometimes not. They've worked for me all today. Perhaps you can download several when they are working. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Disambiguation-stop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doncram, I see the administrator has decided to close the discussions on the Campestre Torres articles in favour of delete. I do genuinely sympathise with your point of view, though, and I do think a list of tallest buildings in El Salvador is a good way to go to solve this. I found just such an article on the Spanish Wikipedia and I'm willing to help translate and find references if you want to create an English version. Richard3120 (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why thank you, very much! Do let's create List of tallest buildings in El Salvador. I see from the Spanish wikipedia page that all three buildings are in fact in the top 25. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campestre 105 Torre C, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre A. Would you like to go ahead and start the page with a translation? I myself wouldn't be able to do much more than using an auto-translation. --doncram 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)‎

User:Richard3120: Dennis Brown, the closing admin, has provided the 3 deleted articles: User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre A, User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre B, and User:Doncram/Campestre 105 Torre C. These can be restored to mainspace and redirected, after the list-article is created, so future full restoration and development of any one of them will have proper edit history in place. Getting to where we would have gotten if the AFDs had been closed with, say, "Merge" to a list-article to be created. ("Merge" closes often give instructions on what other editors are to do, it doesn't have to be fully implemented by the closer, and I think this would have reflected a consensus.) --doncram 02:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've made a start on the table in my sandbox and added a few references that I've found. Richard3120 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Northwest Marietta Historic District would be a great one to visit and take photos of its houses.) " My daughter will be going to school in Marietta next semester. I can probably get several photos. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Bubba73, I think it looks fun and doable because the NRHP document identifies not too many notable buildings and they would be findable: there are addresses plus captioned accompanying photos identifying them. And the accompanying photos show that they're nice...I happen to like Greek Revival a lot. I added more to the article. It would be really great if you could get pix for all 20 of the named houses and other buildings, so we could make an illustrated table row for each, as has been done in some of wp:NRHP's examples of good HD articles. If you have time. :) Of course any pics at all would be great. --doncram 02:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

My sister used to live on Church Street - one of the streets in the HD, but she lived about 2 blocks north of it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am also trying to reopen a case and could not find a section "To open a case" on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases. Strange that the guide has not been updated in the year since you posted the question on the guide's talk page. Did you ever get an answer?--Wikimedes (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I've found the answer. I corrected the Guide as well.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, resolved well. Described in this diff of Wikimedes and me at the Talk page. Thanks! --doncram 04:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  Draft:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

Perhaps you could look over the 3 other articles started by that editor and see if they are fine? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, could you please have a look at Hollywood (Benoit, Mississippi)? You missed a " } " someplace but I'm not sure where. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple things got garbled there in fact. Thanks User:Magnolia677 for calling it to my attention, and it is fixed now.

By the way, now there's a content issue of contradictory information at linked movie Baby Doll page, which says the J.C. Burrus house was built in 1848, vs. this now saying Hollywood was built during 1858-61. Hmm. --doncram 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I added that part about the movie. Let me poke around for a solid source for the date. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doncram: I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate your kindness in reworking my proposed article and clearly investing significant time and energy in that task, to help it present a better face to this community. I have little faith that the article will be deemed relevant and survive on Wikipedia in any format for much longer - and am very truly surprised/saddened by this outcome - but your kindness is truly a very bright spot in this whole experience. Thank you again. And as they say in Star Trek, Live Long & Prosper!!! Tosresearcher (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thank you for that! I just posted at User talk:Tosresearcher what I think is a way forward still: modifying List of Star Trek reference books to become something like Star Trek non-fiction works. That post includes diff to my request to the AFD closer, for a copy of the deleted Gerald Gurian article. --doncram 22:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A

That was the motion passed eventually i guess, which was finalized in this final version just before being archived. --doncram 21:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I think you may be confusing the intent of these page. They're a disambiguation pages, not a list of churches called "First United Presbyterian Church" or "First United Methodist Church". As such, it's not an article and adheres to a different

• there's no reason to mention that a church is on the National Register of Historic Places. It does not help in disambiguation, especially when the majority of the entries are tagged that way. (The "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." point from
  MOS:DABENTRY
  is important here.)
• The redlink
  MOS:DABRED
  . The correct thing to do is to create the target article first, and establish the subject's notability there, then add it to the disambiguation page.
• Inclusion criteria for disambiguation pages are simple. It doesn't require a value judgement on which articles are notable and which aren't, as your comment on First United Presbyterian Church seems to imply. In broad terms, an article appears in a disambiguation page if it asserts that the subject is referred to by the ambiguous term.

Cheers,—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 00:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Doncram

Which was discussed, up to this version before being deleted or archived. --doncram 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:World types topic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doncram. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that. I'll use it from now on. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion:, you're welcome! FYI, what I do now is copy-paste the following:
<ref name=nrhpdoc>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: or Registration: |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate= }} with {{NRHP url|id=|photos=y|title=photos}}</ref>

and then edit it, in order to create NRHP inventory-nomination or NRHP registration document references. The {{NRHP url}} was created not by me, but I guess the idea is to be more robust and centrally-fixable if/when the NPS changes its file structure again. What's most important is using the "photos=y" link too, to get the accompanying photos. There's no required way to describe the photos; what I usually do now is say something like "12 photos from 1985" or "accompanying two photos from 1930 and 1995". cheers, --doncram 03:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The ephemeral nature of the NPS file locations has been a nuisance since the dawn of the Internet, this helps greatly. The NPS database managers can barely keep it running from one to the next, and it often seems to fail on weekends.

I'll backtrack and expand the photo descriptions when I have a little more time on the listings I've done in the past couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

Hello, Doncram. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doncram,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new

Monitoring the system

section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

I'm not sure what you were attempting at the end of the article. I removed it, so you will need to apply it again. Also, the type of coordinate parameters used in the infobox is depreciated. I didn't know about this until this week. See Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing where i had accidentally duplicated a reference in the wrong place. And thanks about link to info on coordinates in infoboxes. I have surmised there was some such change because of bot edits i have seen going on. I'll let the bots keep at it. --doncram 00:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doncram,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)