User talk:Nyttend/Archive 5

I agree with your concept of two middle schools and two high schools; however, the way the paragraph now reads, it looks as though there are three of each. How can we improve this section to clarify the number and still maintain the intent to show the alternative nature of the two schools?--DutchTower 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• here is a quote from the section: "...two junior (or middle) schools, and two high schools. In addition the district supports home schooling as well as alternative education programs at Mackenzie High School and the Wright Place Middle School." To me this sounds like two middle schools AND Wright Place Middle School (3 total). I'm still thinking.--DutchTower 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I share your puzzlement over the word "townsite" for Los Alamos. However, the word does seem to be used to describe the place. My best guess is that all three of the original Manhattan Project secret communities started out with the residential area being called "townsite" (this certainly is true of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where I live), and they still use that term in Los Alamos. --Orlady 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

and making it, if not a better place to live, at least a better place to visit on wikipedia. We are indeed an unincorporated village (though a village none-the-less) which is why I spent the last week or so at the Embudo Valley Library book sale. We get no local taxes for the library. Perhaps more than you want to know, but it's too late now. in any case, I appreciate your improvements here. Carptrash 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By accident, this time, I apparently changed the Island Pond article after you had edited it. I did not notice that you had been there first, in which case I would have probably left it alone. It won't make any difference anyway as local people edit out the article every time it is inserted. Maybe after you become an administrator, you can lock it!  :) Student7 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not stalking me huh? What about Brevard County? I don't dare look at your contributions. It would probably alarm me. What in the world do you have in the way of a connection? T6 or something? (I don't really need an answer!  :) Student7 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that the "External links" section was added by a bot...Rambot, and that the article has never actually had an external link. What's the story? --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wow! I really don't have time to research out how all this has happened, but would be happy supporting a process of dialogue that straightens it out. If one is going on or begins, please alert me to it. Much thanks for taking time to explain the dilemma to me. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 13:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add Phippen to

It's hard for me to understand what would qualify when I see stuff in wikipedia like the entry for Great Falls, Montana listing notable people including an erotic movie star, who has her own page. Hmmm. I sure would rather know about George Phippen and the many honors and quality artistic works he did.

Also Great Falls has a whole list of "notable people", most of whom are substantially less notable than Phippen.

How about leaving him on? Honestly, he's much more notable than the gas station, cafe (which has been closed off and on over the years), and autoshop. --Pearrari 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Good Luck with the mop and remember to Always Do Right! -- Cheers, Cecropia 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me too, I am sure you will do very well (and do good too), Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Look forward to working with you on Island Pond. Please lock it. (Just kidding  :). Student7 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thanks for letting me know about 3RR because I honestly didn't know that. I won't violate that rule in the future. But I really and truly am left scratching my head over your desire to remove the constable's name. It seems pretty harmless to me and it certainly isn't in violation of WP:BLP by any means. Considering that neither of us has any connection to Island Pond, I can't see why we are in such disagreement over this issue. Vtindigo1958 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, is you come across a page that is clearly speedy deletable and there's o tag on it, deleting it and warning the author' the right procedure. You can tag it yourself if you want a second opinion, but that's optional. Wizardman 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I thacaracter was only mentioned in a few sentences in the show and neever appeard on scrren the character was mentioned only in season one and very sporadically. The page is worthless fancruft and must be deleted.--Lucy-marie 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony Barrera is not a wrestler in any way shape or form, he is an e-wrestler as stated in his article and the subject of "pic basing" is the usage of other people for the identities of their creations. The wrestler does not exist except on the internet. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain pic basing the image of "Tony Barrera" in the infobox is simply a picture of

Jason Reso labelled differently. –– Lid^(Talk

) 06:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, was taken to AfD and was speedy deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Barrera –– Lid^(Talk) 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding there is no CSD that allows for speedy deletion of a page written in another language, instead a {{notenglish}} tag is added to it. The reason i requested this page be deleted was because it appeared on another wikipedia site (the Arabic one or something), and that very well may have been your reason for deletion, i was just a bit confused about your deletion summary, and am curious if i do not know something. Cheers! Tiptoety 07:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is fine, i guessed as much. We all make mistakes! Yea, every admin i have been talking to does not know what to do with it either :) Cheers! Tiptoety 16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A "town" in Wisconsin is the portions of a "township" under the old Northwest Ordinance grid system which have not been incorporated into a village or city. . A "town," while not incorporated (they are provided for in the state constitution), has a certain limited government (governed by New-England-style town meetings) and certain limited powers, but is vulnerable to annexation by villages and cities within the township or nearby; so, the boundaries are somewhat unstable, subject to change. The City of Madison, for example, is plagued by scattered portions of the old Town of Madison which still remain unincorporated and fiercely resist annexation by Madison or any other village or city. They have a powerful lobby in the Wisconsin Towns Association. This is a good introduction, albeit with a POV, and has good links. --Orange Mike 16:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wisconsin towns are

survey townships as exactly as OrangeMike states above, but almost - each town is in one and only one county, for example, but that's not the case for all survey townships. All of the other things OrangeMike says, and in the reference he provided, are spot-on. Happy editing! Merenta

17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I gave him the link to the article. What matters is that every county in Wisconsin started out divided into these townships: within each county, the boundaries of towns and survey townships roughly corresponded, as the article says, with notable exceptions for things like rivers. Then portions of these were incorporated into cities and villages, leaving smaller and smaller remnants of the old townships, sometimes not even contiguous. The Wisconsin Towns Association has developed its own ideology of why these entities should be preserved and even given greater powers (some of them obstructive in nature), rather than incorporated as full-blown villages/cities, or annexed by such; others find their arguments unconvincing or even disingenuous. --Orange Mike 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Magdalena, New Mexico is a town. It received its charter from the NM Secretary of State in 1913. It has not been revoked. --Bejnar 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that Magdalena is village-sized, however by NM state law it was incorporated as a town in 1913 and that has not been revoked. Would you like a letter from the NM Secretary of State? --Bejnar 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war with you. Please see Talk:Magdalena, New Mexico.--Bejnar 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In concert with Polaron, villages have been disappearing all over Vermont. We have towns, census-designated places, gores (which are nearly empty), cities, but no category for "unincorporated villages" where most of Vermonters live. There is no indication in the category "villages in Vermont" that the category intended to eliminate unincorporated villages which are perhaps 75% of the villages in Vermont. Student7 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was obscure. In Island Pond, Vermont Polaron deleted village and substitued "community" or something. You then deleted Island Pond from the category "village," unless I looked at it wrong. I apologize if I looked at it wrong. Student7 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a political trend for villages in Vermont to unincorporate themselves, besides the concern I have about villages that are already unincorporated. The expectation is that maybe in 10-15 years there will be few if any incorporated villages left. Real estate values have been declining and populations shrinking. The villages want to turn their responsibilities over to the town. Student7 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Vermont statutes does provide for the existence of villages without incorporation. See Title 24, Chapter 39, 1301. This calls villages "villages" prior to incorporation. The statute goes on to explain the extra atrributes acquired by the village.Student7 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pity you deleted the page. McEwen was one of the foremost opponents of Modernism in this country, extremely well known, editing Evangelical Action for decades.Rowlandw 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted my link to the restaurant. I have no financial interest in any restaurant, but its link is a nice attraction to the area, and contains a history of the name, from the Tewa language. Why is it gone? Carrionluggage 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for reply

I see in my contributions 08:16, 7 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Chimayo, New Mexico‎ (→External links - great food - this is not an advertisement!) I think this one deleted it 14:48, 5 November 2007 Nyttend (Talk | contribs) (9,596 bytes) (County template, moved picture) (undo) but I am a Wiki-Klutz so excuse if I erred. Carrionluggage 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? What is the rationale? The talk pages did not get moved in parallel.... Residents of the

The official name AND the familiar name (which wikipedia guidelines support using) is Town of Oyster Bay. Same for other Towns - at least on LI http://www.oysterbaytown.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={62D70726-090A-4FE2-A142-4D12C01156DE} --JimWae 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.toh.li/content/home/message.html

Note also that one can no longer get to the NY hamlet of Oyster Bay from the Oyster Bay disambiguation page. Who knows how many other problems this undiscussed change has wrought? --JimWae 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, for every town in List_of_towns_in_New_York, when I click on the town article I see very near the top Town of... THis indicates to me that although most of the article titles may not be "Town of...", perhaps they should be - if we were to observe the "most common name" rule. It also eliminates the need to type in parentheses if one wants to search for a place --JimWae 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you try to patch up all the problems your numerous moves have created - I am suggesting you reverse them --JimWae 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Within the Requested move template is the following text: "Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move"." Which "standard" were you observing when you overlooked this step? --JimWae 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice please where Talk:Oyster Bay, New York takes you. What was your hurry? --JimWae 06:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You removed the db-bio off of this article, but what do you consider notable in it? She's not even a runner-up on the reality-TV programs she's been on... Thanks. -Yupik 06:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the Census Bureau does not consider New England towns as

I apologize for my "personal attack." I was not thinking at the time. Thank you for pointing that out. Student7 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had considered blocking you both to prevent

I appreciate that you created the template for municipalities in Catron County. However, removing the previous template from all of the pages in order to place your new one was kinda brutal. I added the information in order to avoid having to go back and place the original template again. • Freechild'sup? 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished doing the remaining temaplates – all in one day! JB82^c 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a message on the WikiProject Wisconsin discussion page about the Wisconsin counties navboxes. I do not have the experience or knowledge about this. I do think there are people from WikiProject Wisconsin who might be able to do this. Many thanks for your note on my discussion page. RFD 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone is working to get the remaining navboxes in for the Wisconsin counties. My thanks and appreciation. I am somewhat familiar with Ohio. One of my sisters lives in Westerville and her daughter (my niece) was married earlier this summer. So, I flew to Ohio for my niece's wedding. My niece and her brother (my nephew) both went to and graduated from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Again, my thanks-RFD (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to allow me to understand why you continue to edit the lincoln county, new mexico section of wikipedia, and changing inportant facts that many locals who use the site place on the page in order to give the most accurate information about the Ruidoso area as well as lincoln county as a whole. Many of your changes are inaccurate and as far as your knowledge compared to mine...I grew up in Ruidoso for the first 18 years of my life...so I think I'd know a little bit about what I'm talking about. Thank you.

Actually, several of your changes are inaccurate according to my knowledge of the history of the area. There isn't a problem with editing a section as long as your provide accurate information and I've noticed that you've gone through all the pages for that specific area and have changed information that is not correct to it's best ability. I've taken a look at the many different things you've done for wikipedia and I've noticed you've contributed several key and important information, but in regards to Lincoln County, New Mexico...you've made a few errors that many people are going to mis-interpret about the area. Forgive me for disagreeing with your information after all. IP Address: 68.35.127.9

I hope I'm doing this right -- I'm new to the inner workings of Wikipedia. If I am, you're the Administrator who deleted my article on Thomas Verner Moore because of "notability" questions. I would claim that Moore *is* in fact "notable", and ask you to undelete the article.

1) Moore was *the* pre-eminent American Catholic psychiatrist in the first half of the 20th century, and important to making the field respectable to Catholics. He also signaled an acceptance of Freudian thought among Catholics. 2) As chairman of the Department of "Psychology and Psychiatry" at the Catholic University of America in Washington, he formed a generation of Catholic psychologists and social workers. 3) He was an early leader of the "mental hygiene" movement in the first half of the 20th century, as part of which he established the first child guidance clinic in Washington DC. 4) He published widely for both professional and popular audiences. 5) He was instrumental in the foundation of two American monasteries -- St Anselm's Abbey (Benedictine) in Washington, and the Charterhouse of the Transfiguration (Carthusian) in Arlington, Vermont. 6) He is the subject of a full-length published biography ("Thomas Verner Moore: Psychiatrist, Educator and Monk" by Benedict Neenan, NY: Paulist Press, 2000). 7) He is honored by an annual lecture series bearing his name, put on by the Catholic Biblical Association of America in Washington every year. 8) He *may* have been the model for a character in two of Walker Percy's novels -- a psychiatrist named Tom More. (Percy was a Catholic physician-turned-novelist who was starting to write in the late 1940s, when Moore was at the peak of his influence.)

I hope this is enough to establish his notability! So I request that you undelete the article. Please feel free to get back to me if you want more information. Thanks. "stpetric" here, or [email protected]

Steve PetricaStpetric (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More (so to speak) on undeleting Thomas Verner Moore

>>Several of your points do not help fulfill notability criteria. The exceptions are 3 and 4 — depending on how important his writings and works are; you'd have to establish those sufficiently<<

I will work on establishing that stuff to your satisfaction. In the meantime, a recent article in Current Psychology (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ytv1h91w52pqmyku/) refers to "the remarkable priest-psychologist-psychiatrist Thomas Verner Moore" and "his capstone work, ... The Driving Forces of Human Nature and Their Adjustment".

Sexual abuse consultant Richard Sipe (http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report_2005.htm) notes that Moore "was well known to bishops throughout the US also because of his writing about the mental health problems of priests in popular ecclesiastical journals even in 1936."

He was notable enough to attract the attention of Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,814099,00.html?iid=chix-sphere) when he established the Carthusian monastery in Vermont.

>> — and 6 — you'd have to establish that the biography is a "credible independent biography."<<

The author, Benedict Neenan, Ph.D., is professor of theology and president of Conception Seminary College in Missouri (http://www.conception.edu/Catalog/admin.htm). Paulist Press (www.paulistpress.com) is a well-known publisher. What more is needed to establish their credibility and independence?

>>However, I am not going to undelete the article, because you committed a copyright violation: except the first sentence, you copied all of it from this page.<<

No, I didn't. I *did* lift it (in order to get something online while I work on a more extensive article) -- but with the explicit permission of the other website's owner. Indeed, they thanked me for helping make Moore a bit better known. I noted their permission at the end of the article. I'd be happy to forward to you my e-mails with them if you like.

Steve PetricaStpetric (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would, but I didn't actually say that -- what I did, was I expressed frustration that I do not have the script which generates the cookie cutter geography pages that Wikipedia uses (the turning of statistics into prose). Quatloo (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, before slapping an IP address with a warning. Also, see the talk page for discussion. All my edits were taken from, or rephrased from

Nyttend, Months ago, while updating and copyedit aircraft and av pages, i got told by Aviation Project editors that the air force nav boxes are Related content and not External links. So over time, seeing other articles with expanded Related content sections and subsections, and thus I continued with their directions keeping that look and feel. So today, I acted 'boldly' as Wikians are suppose to and made the AF Space Command links with consistant look and feel. I have put a number of hours in this little project of mine. Parallel to this, I add adding portals to the articles, consistancies in ProjAv and AVHIST template classes and ratings in the Talk pages, AV articles with Design/Develop./Operations/etc/etc. consistancies , cleaning up Refs/Citations espeically major links to USAF Museum since their old link is broke... this and other edits are listed in the Project Av/ToDo pages. In conclusion, I am supporting and keeping the direction of the AV editors that have preceded me. Other Wiki Project "subject matters/categories" have their related 'look and feel' so does aviation/military/space related articles and projects. Respectfully submitted.LanceBarber (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please visit and refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Related content. I am in accordance with the practices of this Project. If you still have any major concerns with your pereceptions, feel free to take it up the the Administrators and the Team of editors with Project Aviation/Aircraft. Have a great Thanksgiving. LanceBarber (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Congratulations on reaching that 25,000 milestone a couple weeks ago. Thanks for all of your hard work all over Wikipedia. On behalf of all Wikipedians, thanks a million!! Rjd0060 (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nytend. I have a draft of her bio almost ready to go. Yes, she's quite a notable figure in AZ history. I'll reinstate the two refs you deleted once the bio is posted. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Sorry I didn't respond to your note of thanks earlier. Congratulations on your adminship! I know you'll be a good one. -- SwissCelt (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for adding the

I notice that there is a typo in the template, namely "Fish island" is spelled with a lowercase "i" in "island" instead of an uppercase "I"; unfortunately, I can't figure out how to fix this error -- can you possibly fix it?

Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten this message about 10 times because it seems like I can't keep up with Wikipedia's image policy. I created all the Montgomery County location maps using data found here, which is from the Census Bureau of course public domain, while using this software: here

I'm basically sick of having to retype these license tags after someone gets bored and changes policies or decides that me claiming that I made the maps myself isnt sufficient (even though I did). If you feel like it, you can chnage all of the Montgomery County location images' tags, otherwise just delete them all for me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinzwilhelm (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop removing the unincorporated community info from the CDP articles? Many of those places were communities long before the term CDP was invented, and as you can see from the blurb I've added to a couple of those articles, it is possible to clarify the status without removing the information completely: "For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau has defined Foo as a census-designated place (CDP). The census definition of the area may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name." I got this from

I've asked Bkonrad and

talk

) 20:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not obvious.

talk

) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're still wondering about the rôle of towns in Wisconsin, see

Also...are you still looking to finish up Wisconsin county navboxen? If so, lemme know which ones you're still looking into. Tomer^talk 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at

Hi! I posted the code at

Gracenotes^T

§ 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, would you stop removing population citations from these articles because they are unsourced and instead actually find a source for them? It would do the articles well to improve them rather than degrade them by removal of content. A good example would be Madden, Mississippi where you removed the population of 74 citing unreferenced. I put it back and used one of the many sources that were within the actual article. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You recently deleted two people from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont%2C_Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwood 43718 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!!! Have a great day!

The "City of" townships in Iowa are townships, according to Iowa law. Please do not remove them from the lists of townships. Omnedon (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed this too, and saw the comments. I agree that, at least in that part of the country, townships shouldn't be skipped just because they contain urbanization. Huwmanbeing ★ 03:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently discovered a pair of unincorporated communities in Jefferson County, Florida to which you had added templates for Jefferson County, Georgia—Fanlew, Florida and Wacissa, Florida. Please be careful to get the state correct when adding templates. Thanks. Horologium (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha, thanks :-) It's generally a question of typos: a week ago, while placing Utah templates, I accidentally started linking to places in Georgia before I realised that I was copy/pasting wrongly. Nyttend 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your question on User:Omnedon's page. In order to get demographic data for a township, go to the Decennial Census data set with detailed tables here, where you can select the census geography to get data for. Select "county subdivision" then choose the state and county in the drop down list. You can then choose which townships to get data for. Then select which data tables to get. For example, for total population and racial breakdown, you can select Tables P1, P9, P10. For example, for Cedar Falls Township, Black Hawk County, Iowa, the final table would be this. To get FIPS and other geographic codes, go to Options and click on "Show geographic identifiers" which should give you this. THE FIPS code is a combination of the "State (FIPS)" line and the "County Subdivision (FIPS)" line separated by a dash. However, you should note that FIPS 55-3 has been declared obsolete and is no longer officially used. The GNIS Feature ID is the one that will replace it. --Polaron | Talk 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For Making some Useful recent Changes Newlinecinema (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I got a note earlier telling me that I (or rather my IP address) had made a change to the "Boundary County" page, but that Nyttend had changed it back. I just wanted to say it wasn't me, and that whoever made such a silly and blatant move to make Boundary County sound like a better place to live should be ashamed of themselves. (Not that it isn't a great place to live...) So, yeah, I got an account just to say that--and to prevent this from happening again. Trevanu (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy -

I am responsible for the earlier deletion of the census data. Communications with CapitalR and MJCDetroit are ongoing on this issue.

I contend the article is about the Red Dog Mine.

The Red Dog Mine Census-designated area is a very very different thing than the Red Dog Mine.

It is misleading and confusing to seamlessly conflate the two. An analogy would be to write a single biography article of two different historical figures with the same name.

What can this new Wikipedia user do to help you experienced hands? (You may want to look at the verifiable references included in the Demographics section.)

So, I just added a disclaimer in the census section, which simply states that the mine is not the census-area.

The mine is a hugely important (in terms of financial, social, and environmental issues) industrial site.

The census area is a trivial artifact of the census. Probably came about because a handful out of the hundreds of mine employees listed their home as Red Dog. But Red Dog is a factory with a big company housing building. One flys there, spends a few weeks or a month, working 12-hour shifts 7 days a week, then flys out to Kivilina or Anchorage or Houston or Paris for a week or two. Yea, a few folks, at times, don't bother to maintain homes in the world, just travel or crash with family on their off time.

Note that the census information you added is not even internally consistent - how can the median income be $0 and the per capita information be $34,438?

Also I deleted the line about pollution that you added to the Geography section. The exact same sentence already exists, with the exact same reference, in the Pollution section.

Cheers, CGX CGX (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nyttend - can you point me to the instructions on how to do a discussion with several wikipedians at once? For now I just paste to you the message I just sent to Plazak.

You have gotten exactly to the point.

The Red Dog Mine deserves an article. The Red Dog Mine Census-designated place does not.

The Red Dog Mine is notable. It deserves a Wikipedia article. It is the world's largest zinc mine. It produces over half of the mineral wealth currently produced in Alaska. It is the economic engine for a huge part of Alaska. The reserves and resources are so huge that it will operate beyond our lifetimes, probably beyond our children's lifetimes. Etc....

The Red Dog Mine Census-Designated Place (RDMCDP)is an artifact of the census. It is entirely trivial. It does not rate any mention anywhere in Wikipedia, except maybe in an article about statistics and data-gathering, and the difficulties therein.

There is no Red Dog mine community - in terms of a public town or settlement. There is just the mine. There was no one there before mineral exploration began. There is no one there now except mine workers, consultants, and specially-invited visitors. It is on 100% private land. The only people that are ever at the mine are mine workers, government inspectors, or other specifically-invited guests of the mine. It is 100% purely an industrial site. The airstrip is private and not open to any uninvited flights (except in emergency).

It is an Alaska-style industrial site, similar to the North Slope oil fields. It is in the Arctic in the middle of nowhere, workers are resident on site for weeks on end. So thats where the confusion comes in. I suppose that some workers listed Red Dog as their home and the US Census had to deal with it somehow.

There are human beings who live in the mine region - and they should be mentioned in the mine article - but the RDMCDP is a terrible and ridiculous construct to use in that discussion. Thats why I added the meaningful census data about the Northwest Arctic Bourough (which is outlined on the map).

Look at that census data for RDMCDP - it is obviously loony! One need not know anything about Red Dog to recognize that. $0 median income and $34K per-capita income? $34K per-capita income and 37.9% of the population below the poverty line? Huh? Zero housing units? Where do the hundreds of mineworkers stay? Go to the census and look at the boundaries of the CDP - its just a big semi-random shape drawn around the general mine site and airport - some poor census employee must have been tasked with defining those limits and grabbed them from some permit application or who knows what.

Note to Nytend: look carefully - the census data for RDMCDP reports that NONE of the residents are younger than 18. And yes, you are correct, approximately 56% of the mines workforce is native. If you listen to the radio communications and hallway talk at the mine you will hear Eskimo spoken, as well as English.

Thanks for your help so far.

CGXCGX (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave you alone after this.

Red Dog Mine is not the Red Dog Mine CDP.

The current Red Dog Mine page is very misleading:it intermingles information about the Red Dog Mine and the Red Dog Mine CDP.

Let us please either; remove from the Red Dog Mine page all reference to the Red Dog Mine CDP , or, put a link to a seperate Red Dog Mine CDP page on the Red

Dog Mine page, or, put a small section on the Red Dog Mine page about the curious case of the Red Dog Mine CDP. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to come in as a newbie and run all over the work of long-time contributors.

Argument:

The very first, critically important, sentence in the article currently states, "Red Dog Mine is a zinc and lead mine and a census-designated place (CDP) in

the Northwest Arctic Borough in the U.S. state of Alaska."

This may easily lead a reader to think that the Red Dog Mine is the exact same thing as the Red Dog Mine CDP, or at least corresponds closely. This is not at

all true. The actual physical footprint of human disturbance at the mine is very different from the outline of the CDP. There is, in fact, no meaningful

relationship at all between the Red Dog Mine and the reported statistics of the Red Dog Mine CDP, other than the single-point geographical coordinates.

The first sentence would be vastly improved if it read something clumsy like, "Red Dog Mine is a zinc and lead mine in the Northwest Arctic Borough in the

U.S. state of Alaska. Although the mine falls geographically within the Red Dog Mine census-designated place (CDP), the statistics for the Red Dog Mine CDP

have no relationship at all to the Red Dog Mine."

I understand that the names are very similar, and that Red Dog Mine falls, geographically, within the Red Dog Mine CDP, but they are very different entities

that should not be mixed together willy-nilly.

Support for Primary Argument:

It is very easy to draw hugely incorrect conclusions about the Red Dog Mine from the Census 2000 statistics for the Red Dog Mine CDP.

Why?

All employees at Red Dog are remote workers. They live somewhere else in the world and stay at Red Dog, at the mine, in a big hotel sort of place, for two to

four weeks at a time. For every two weeks at the mine, a worker gets one week off. Thus, during their Red Dog careers, Red Dog employees spend 2/3 of their

lives at the mine.

Only a few dozen, out of the hundreds of workers at Red Dog, chose to list their work site (i.e., Red Dog) as their residence in census 2000. The other

approximately 450 employees listed some Alaska town, or New York, or wherever as their home. Thus the census figures do not report the actual situation on

the ground at Red Dog. The census figures report only that 32 out of the hundreds of workers at Red Dog chose to report Red Dog as their residence. Yet the

only actual difference at Red Dog between these 32 and their hundreds of co-workers is how they filled out a piece of paperwork.

If Wikipedia simply presents the Red Dog CDP data on the Red Dog Mine page, it will lead Wikipedia readers to think that there are 32 people, with

mathematically impossible income, living on the tundra with no housing whatsoever, within the boundaries of the Red Dog Mine CDP.

The actual situation is that there is a hotel-like accommodation at the Red Dog Mine, which houses hundreds of mine-workers at any given time. The 32 people

reporting to the Red Dog CDP are a subset of these hundreds, not because of the way or where they live, but because of how they filled out their census

paperwork.

On any given day, hundreds of people "live" in the Red Dog Mine CDP, all of them at Red Dog Mine. But none of them really live there, they are workers,

consultants, etc, staying at the hotel-like Personnel Accomadation Center (PAC).

It is not neccesary to refute the statistics presented by Census 2000 for the Red Dog Mine CDP. It is simply neccesary to recognize that the CDP is not the

mine.

CGXCGX (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nyttend -

I've posted another long message to you on my user page. Thanks for the quick response and hard work! CGXCGX (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help some more? The 'M' in mine should not be capitalized when referring to the Red Dog mine. But I don't know how to change it (afraid of breaking links). CGX againCGX (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You added the

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Archive 5" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag to the Franklin, Ohio article and all the paragraphs except one is referenced. Please explain your criteria for adding the tag. Thanks. Mfields1 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For all the information in the history section, the references are listed in the reference section, e.g. Elva R. Adams. Warren County Revisited. [Lebanon, Ohio]: Warren County Historical Society, 1989.

The Centennial Atlas of Warren County, Ohio. Lebanon, Ohio: The Centennial Atlas Association, 1903. Mabel Eldridge and Dudley Bryant. Franklin in the Great Miami Valley. Edited by Harriet E. Foley. Franklin, Ohio: Franklin Area Historical Society, 1982. Harriet E. Foley, editor. Carlisle: The Jersey Settlement in Ohio, 1800–1990. 2nd ed. [Carlisle, Ohio?]: The Editor, 1990. Josiah Morrow. The History of Warren County, Ohio. Chicago: W.H. Beers, 1883. (Reprinted several times)

So what are you looking for that causes you to tag it as not referenced? Is there something specific?

Cheers. Mfields1 (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that I had self-reverted that. I realized the mistake. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Red Dog mine, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on December 12, where you can improve it if you see fit. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As the bulk of the article's content was transferred from

WP:DYK. My apologies for the confusion, Black Falcon ^(Talk

) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

stole a couple of your user boxes, thanks! Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything about Iola on Google. I am about 150 miles from there (in Houston area), you might check with someone editing Bryan/College Station area articles. Sorry couldn't help. Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the prompt stub article (in response to my edit of the Franklin County box)! I asked and I received... I have oodles of Georgesville history to add, thanks again! Signed, a Georgesville native. 65.24.166.140 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, I wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I did have a very nice Christmas. I got to the Joseph Priestley House just before the holiday and got a bunch of photos on Commons, some of which are now in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Cedar Rapids in 1970 and went to the Wadena festival. So, OK; it's legally a city. Town is stretching it but I can deal with it. Cheers Phyllis1753 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please justify the reasoning that it is "definitely notable"? It looks like just another high school to me.

I just deleted Bristol Entertainment after seeing that you sought to speedy delete it. Just wanted to let you know that your template, {{db-n}}, is not an actual template; I wouldn't have seen it if I'd not been recentchanges patrolling. Thanks for tagging it! Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, actually in between when you saw the article and you deleted it, I had re-edited it and changed the db-n to db-band. Thanks for letting me know, though By the way... what is the protocol? As an admin, should I have just deleted it, or is it preferred to tag it and let a second admin look it over? I am an n00b admin. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nyttend, I wanted to let you know of some discussions I've been having with other users regarding the county nav boxes. Given your involvement in helping create templates for all counties, I think your input in these discussions would be beneficial. They can both be found on my talk page, the first discussing inclusion of articles outside the scope of "Municipalities and communities" and the second discussing listing CDPs separately from other unincorporated areas. Thanks, I look forward to hearing your views on these items. VerruckteDan (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you swing by this article and do all that coordinates magic that you do? Someone created this article yesterday. I'm a Mississippian and have never heard of this place. I Googled it and it exists. -- ALLSTARecho 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not? -- ALLSTARecho 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you've been a busy worker bee! Thank you! -- ALLSTARecho 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nyttend,

Don't worry about it. It's difficult to tell what a person is thinking/feeling sometimes online. Thank you for all of your input in the current navbox discussion. Reb (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for putting up the great new articles on ghost towns in Nebraska - they're one of my imagination's favorite topics, and I really enjoy the ones you've done so far. Thanks! • Freechild'sup? 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you posted a link to a county breakdown of Ohio. As there is no Caldwell County or Dawson Springs in Ohio of which I am aware I am confused and hope it was a mistake. According to this map, at least, Dawson Springs, KY (the peach shaded area) exists solely within Hopkins County, KY. And, just for the record, by the broadest interpretation, Dawson Springs would then exist within Hopkins, Caldwell, and Christian Counties. Have you visited the area? Just curious. Also, in terms the County Template I am not 100% sure why it is needed in a county that officially only has two incorporated towns. Could you clarify this for me, i.e. is there Wikipedia policy encouraging or mandating this template? Thanks. Sjbodell (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I see what you mean, but I wonder what exactly the government was thinking with that inclusion. Hopefully I'm not boring you to tears but here is what I know of the geographic situation in and around Caldwell County (where I have lived 75% of my life): There are certain oddities that abound around county lines. For instance, many people in Fredonia have Eddyville phone numbers or addresses. There are numerous people who live in Lyon County but have a Princeton or Fredonia phone number or address. The same with Dawson Springs--people who live in Hopkins County may have a Princeton number or address and people who live in Caldwell County may have a Dawson Springs number or address. I think there are several in Christian County who have Hopkins County or Caldwell County numbers or addresses. The same is true for Dycusburg in Crittenden, Caldwell, and Lyon Counties and an unincorporated community called Black Hawk in Caldwell, Trigg, and Lyon Counties. The list goes on. However, I am quite certain that when it comes to voting and census records they are strictly split along county lines--i.e., everyone in Caldwell County votes either in Princeton or Fredonia, never Dawson Springs, even those who might have Dawson Springs numbers or addresses making them (I would think) technically citizens of Princeton. Anyway, it is all odd to me. Do you mind if I put a somewhat more coherent version of this on the talk pages of

Caldwell County, KY and other affected pages for any interested? Thanks. Sjbodell (talk

) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall set to work on cementing my sources. My mother is a librarian and my stepfather is a mailman in Princeton and my great-uncle is the Caldwell County Historian, so between us we should be able to figure something out--who knew it would be such an issue! Now, off-subject, my stepfather was the longtime mailman at Tolu in Crittenden County. I am letting you know because I noticed on the Crittenden County, Kentucky template that only Marion and Dycusburg are listed. However, both Tolu and Crayne are incorporated towns with their own post offices and zip codes (which may sound funny if you are a big city-dweller). Tolu's zip code is 42084 and Crayne's is 42033. Is that what the cities of the county template are based upon? My stepfather's old mail route covered all of Tolu, which actually spills into Livingston County. However, I do see that according to the 2000 census neither Crayne nor Tolu exist as "places." If you will look here it also shows what (I think) I mean about Dawson Springs. It shows that the part of Dawson Springs in Caldwell County is only 0.02 mi² and has no population or housing units. Quite bizarre. Maybe I should write my Congressman instead of bothering you! Haha. Thanks. Sjbodell (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I had added

Actually I was thinking about procedure really. Is there a page I need to request the template on or can I just go ahead and create it? I think I have the syntax figured out already. Thanks again. Reb (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nyttend, I wanted to thank you for your help with the infobox question. I went ahead and created it as you suggested Saturday night and input it into the article. Reb (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they do in Texas or Wisconsin, but we folks here are

It's not a question of Texas or Wisconsin only. Check Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New York, and Vermont. All these states have such templates used on all their counties, and I'm pretty sure that none of them have neighborhoods of cities. This is my demonstration of consensus. I've searched everywhere I can see on the New Jersey project page and subpages, and I don't see anything requiring inclusion of neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not relevant what is done in the other 49 states. I suggest you check out

WT:NJ to see if you can obtain consensus that relevant policy requires a change. Alansohn (talk

) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • City boxes, whether New York or others, are radically different: as there's only one community in the county, there's no need for a county template per-se; they're simply listed in the county boxes category as a matter of convenience, being the closest those counties have.
    • Do you know what towns and hamlets in New York are? A town in New York is somewhat similar to a civil township, not a town or any other type of government in New Jersey; while a hamlet is simply the standard name for an unincorporated community. Please pardon if you already knew that.

Moreover, the thing is that we're using a nationwide template: unless you're proposing using a separate form of template, you're using the same thing as other states do. It is obvious that you've decided to go against the established practise nationwide. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, long-standing practice in New Jersey has been to include all named communities within a county on the county template. The fact that other states have chosen to include a narrower set of information is only to their detriment and makes it harder for a reader to find the community they're searching for. Unless you can point to a Wikipedia policy that prohibits this information, there would seem to be no reason to remove it where used other than the foolishness of arbitrary consistency. I again suggest that you approach the 50-odd participants in the New Jersey WikiProject by laying out your case at

WT:NJ that Wikipedia policy requires deletion of information from the county templates. Alansohn (talk

) 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to go through an extended discussion of this, and I'm not going to fight about it, even though you've never presented evidence that anybody else concurs with you. I may bring this up in the future, however. You might want to ask the opinion of VerruckteDan, another editor who works with these templates; he's as experienced as I, and no need to worry that I've asked him to support me on this: unless he reads my talk page or watches the Essex County template, he has no idea of this matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The underlying question is why would you remove information from a template that provides relevant details regarding communities in the county? What would happen if this were done in one state? Or all 50? Every article for every county has many sections in common and some that are unique to each one, reflective of its unique characteristics. Why shouldn't a reader looking for Upper Montclair, New Jersey be able to find it on the Essex County template, just because it's not a municipality? These are all points to consider for the future. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that they aren't separate communities. This is what neighborhood templates, such as Template:Atlanta neighborhoods, are for. Neighborhoods are subsets and therefore regions of cities — as if we listed civil townships in a template of counties. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear what your distinction is. Almost all other counties in New Jersey have well-defined communities that are not municipalities. By what definition must they be "separate"? Both the Template:DeKalb County, Georgia and Template:Fulton County, Georgia list "communities", which you've deleted from New Jersey templates. The neighborhood information has been on the Template:Essex County, New Jersey for just short of two years, about a century in Wikipedia time. Nor is it clear what is gained by excluding details for Newark, New Jersey, at about 270,000 residents the state's largest city and with no discernible metro area to justify a standalone template of its own. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My turn to be confused: I don't see how you could be confused. Look at the five communities in Fulton County: none of them are incorporated, and all are located in unincorporated areas. Perhaps a better comparison is Template:Windsor County, Vermont: the places listed in the Communities line are scattered through the towns but not in any of the villages. I'm aware that New England towns are incorporated, as are New Jersey townships, but they're still minor civil divisions, unlike cities and boroughs and towns and villages. Therefore, places within the towns, as within New Jersey townships, are listed, but neighborhoods within cities and boroughs and towns and villages are not. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• All of New Jersey is incorporated. Every one of New Jersey's 566 municipalities is a
  WT:NJ as to which Wikipedia policies require the removal of this longstanding information, and what will be gained through its removal. Alansohn (talk
  ) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you better ask User:VerruckteDan who wrote most of the template, and knows more about it than I do. If I try to do what you ask, I either might break the template or have to rewrite it. Sorry for any inconvenience. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mixing non-existent towns in with existing ones is inappropriate. Note too that Wikipedia policy deprecates the argument that such-and-such is OK simply because other pages do it. If indeed there are other templates that list towns that don't exist, then they likely will need to be changed. Could you provide a list of these templates? Thanks. Huwmanbeing ★ 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghost towns are, by definition, not communities. They are towns that have been abandoned. They may have significance and may deserve mention in the relevant county articles, being part of those counties' histories; but the title in the county navigational template is "Municipalities and communities of ...". Ghost towns are neither municipalities nor communities and hence do not belong there. Omnedon (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. I must confess I'm still not understanding your position on this issue, but I'll try to elaborate and clarify my own. The purpose of the templates we're dealing with is to list the various recognized settlements and divisions within a county (as its title suggests). Put simply, then, the question one could use to determine if someplace should be included in the template could be put like this: "Is X a community in Y county?" If it isn't, it should not be included. So let's apply this test to the case of the town of Springville, Indiana, which was in with the unincorporated communities: Is Springville an unincorporated community in Clark County? The answer is no, it is not. There is no town or other populated place in Clark County called Springville.

Now, some of the cases you cite of true "ghost towns" out west differ from what we're dealing with here in that they are still recognized towns, extant after a fashion. They still have a physical presence in the form of abandoned buildings, streets, etc. and still appear on USGS maps (like so). Is that true of Springville? No ([4]).

I have no problem with documenting extinct communities -- they're a fascinating subject and I've made articles for many of them myself. All I'm saying is that sprinkling non-existent towns into a template that's labeled "Municipalities and communities of ___ County" is an extremely misleading practice that should cease. And (again) the fact that some templates do this is not a good justification that others should. Huwmanbeing ★ 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) The broadness of the GNIS codes is interesting – judging from the county's list of IDs[5], it seems the USGS assigns them to practically every feature, extinct or otherwise. Some it explicitly labels as "historical", and it looks like there are others not labeled that way that probably should be. In the past I've tried to get the USGS to correct a few small errors and typos in their maps of my home area, but as you say, it's a typical bureaucracy and is glacially slow to act. Huwmanbeing ★ 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)