Hello, Fortguy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! 7talk | Δ | 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this article while patrolling new pages - thanks for submitting it :). If it's a complete list and you can find some third-party sources you might consider WP:FL. If you're interested, give me a poke on my talkpage - I've run that gauntlet about fifteen times. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists, rather than articles - articles are unfortunately a lot harder (hence why I only have two, really). I'll take a look at the list tomorrow morning, see if it needs tweaking and if not, co-nominate it :). Ironholds (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:NE Parkway.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, recently there has been a push to reduce the number of stub-class articles. A number of ideas have been tossed around, and we'd like your input at WT:USRD. Thanks for your contributions! --Fredddie™ 03:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on an article for RM 2424, which starts in Kent, and I was told by the users on #wikipedia-en-roads that you might have photos of RM 2424. Would you happen to have some? Griffinofwales (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed you are a relative newcomer to the site. You should check out #wikipedia-en-roadsconnect (you might want to read WP:IRC and m:IRC first). It's where many of the USRD project members go and discuss things. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about {{Jct}} delinking the FM and RM articles that don't exist? The changes made would be similar to this edit I made to Minnesota County Roads. It wouldn't affect articles that have already been written, and once an article was written, the link would appear. Let me know what you think. –Fredddie™ 01:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this and the other lists like it, this wouldn't affect it at all. The net effect of this is that all of the blue links on the completion lists would have links when you use {{Jct}}. –Fredddie™ 02:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx Fortguy, the greeting is appreciated. As you've probably guessed, I'm not as versed about all the WP ins/outs as I should be. I was amazed when I first sat down to edit about how many articles could be written or needed help. I've gone to work on what I know, either from-scratch or additions to those articles already here. I have seen the ones that have the sections, but I guess I was either in a hurry to get several done before going to snooze, or was lazy and thought I'd come back to them. There's some things I know about some articles around here but there's always burden-of-proof thing that comes w/it I guess :D ...For example, I know that FM 2493 is a previous/historic routing of US 69 but I haven't been able to find the right map yet to tell me that so it can be linked. Also, that US 175, before it was commissioned in 1932, was a part of TX 40 (the original version, not the one used down by Bryan-College Station), but I've seen very little when it comes to maps and other documentation online that I can add, linkie-wise to the US 175 article without getting the WP evil-eye (plus, no car to go down to libraries along the way to do any research; or, take any new pix :( ). I've seen some of the {} stuff around but I didn't know about some of the ones you referenced. Also, I've seen the Google citations but didn't know exactly how they were done either. I haven't tried to do any map-drawing for any of the articles, but the shields--I don't know what I'm doing wrong on those. I've downloaded Inkscape, the Roadgeek fonts, and a blank FM shield, but can't get the fonts to work right, and I don't know my way around the 'path' thing. So, unfortunately, I've tried to be content listing the un-shielded articles in the needs-shield Category for now. Anyway, I'll have to hold on to that message so I can refer to it. Thanx again Fortguy--very helpful.... Awtribute (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if at all possible I'd like to get the article expanded with a little more background on his political career before his sudden rise to international fame — things he did or didn't do as a councillor, etc. — so that the article doesn't run the risk of being seen as a WP:BLP1E. But, obviously, at the moment the suicide speech is disproportionately dominating the information I can find on Google about him — do you know offhand where I might be able to find some older news coverage from DFW-area media? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the 1938 map, the section between Nixon and Gonzales is TX 112. It's also shown that way on my summer 1939 map. 25or6to4 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - thank you for one! But, when you are adding the Texas termini, can you use {{roadlink}} for those too? I think you are hand coding it so it shows TX not SH but I think SH xxx is fine, since the list also mentions "at the Texas state line". --Admrboltz (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, and if there is, most people will click on the link to see what its all about. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Imz mentioned that to me... US 412 doesn't show in the NMDOT log either. Right now the article just has NMDOT log info, I will go back through with AASHTO information soon. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]
Hello, Fortguy! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Thanks for uploading File:WHHSBenbrook.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Hey, I will check in a couple days for you and get back to you ASAP. All I can say is that it inded was not mapped on the 1936 map. I will also mention that I was also working on a mass redirect type page for all the Texas highways that currently don't exist. Take a look here and see if you have any pointers/suggestions: [2]. Thanks, 25or6to4 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I just checked the maps, and TX 247 is not on any of the maps from 1936 (March), 1937 (August), 1938 (September), or 1939 (June). 25or6to4 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief straw poll to see if conducting a RFC on the question of coordinates in road articles is worthwhile at WT:RJL. Your input would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 08:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1926 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1928 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1936 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1917 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1919 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1922 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:TxDOT 1933 map requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Imzadi 1979→ 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is mostly your work, I was wondering if you would help me handle the good article nomination. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 16:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In short, don't use the templates to create the links, like you did at {{Val Verde County, Texas Highways}}. Navboxes should have direct links, and if an article hasn't been created yet, the link in the navbox should be red. The {{roadlink}} template is suppressing the link to Farm to Market Road articles that are redlinks, so they show up as plain black text in the navbox. Someone is liable to come along and remove them because they aren't links. Also, there are bots that update navboxes to change the target of a link if something is redirected, but these bots can't do that when the link doesn't directly exist in the navbox template. Keep up the good work though! Imzadi 1979→ 01:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could help adopt this article? I think that if it could be expanded and transformed into an article about the interchange itself, with the reconstruction project as part of the history/future section, that we would have a much better treatment of the subject than the current paragraph which doesn't currently demonstrate notability. Imzadi 1979→ 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! As a member of WP:USRD, you may be interested to know that we are doing the USRD Cup contest again this year! Signups are at the above page and the contest will begin February 1. --Rschen7754 10:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Big 12 Conference football season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rice Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Bar-sr-bar plain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your postings over at Equality on Trial, and I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, but have no Spanish ability at all. Let me know if you want me to chime in on something. The page is getting complex, but I'm not sure there is that much ability to simplify it. Hopefully, we'll be able to take a look at that after Marriage Equality comes to all of Mexico.Naraht (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding historical designations to Cibolo Creek Ranch and for your excellent Texas edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for everything you've done on the Texas RTHL page. I created that page when I found out there was not one, and didn't have the Wikipedia coding talent to make it anywhere near what you have done. I should be due an RTHL update list from THC in July, and looking at how you've changed it, I do think I can add the handful of new ones in the same format. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Texas State University System Wikipedia page[edit]
Thank you for all the work on the Texas State University System page.
Just letting you know I made an edit for the Lamar University endowment depicted on the Texas State University System page. The endowment is actually over $100,000,000. Lamar has two endowments. The two are Lamar University Foundation, Inc with a 2015 amount of $73,438,000.00 and Lamar University with a 2015 amount of $33,388,000.00 according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers 2015 study released in January, 2015. It appears that USNWR is not picking up both endowments. I updated the endowment amount in the table to reflect the combined endowment according to the NACUBO study. I also added a note showing the endowment reported by the US News and World Report "Best Colleges" report with an explanation. The US News and World Report magazine uses the NACUBO study as a source. I linked a USNWR article and quoted a paragraph where USNWR provided a link back to the NACUBO study page.
As an fyi, the USNWR endowment number has similar discrepancies for other universities. For example, USNWR shows $135,804,000 for the University of South Alabama. The NACUBO study shows $362,492,000 for the University of South Alabama Foundation fund and $167,226,000 for the University of South Alabama fund. There was a similar issue with another university that I graduated from, Texas A&M University. USNWR understated A&M's endowment by several billion $'s then. USNWR has the correct number now. A&M reports a combined number of its endowments to NACUBO now, but separated its multiple endowment funds during the years USNWR reported an understated amount. I suspect, as in Lamar's case, USNWR was not picking up all of A&M's endowment amounts in its report.
LUSportsFan (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hello, Fortguy. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hi,
I saw your comments on this while you reverted the changes put by me as part of the Page Review exercise here . I find your note quite offending and would like to understand the rationale behind it. Shall appreciate a response. Devopam (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have seen your constructive work adding information to NRHP articles. It looks like you are using the individual lat/long parameters that have traditionally been used in infoboxes. Those parameters are being replaced with the |coordinates= parameter, which can use the {{Coord}} template to pass coordinates to the infobox as well as any location maps that are used in the article. For more information about this simplification of the infobox templates, you can start at the (relatively technical) page Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes.
At some point in the near future, the individual lat/long parameters will be removed from infobox templates. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The listings you recently added to the Cibola County NRHP list are all already on the Valencia County list, and all but El Morro National Monument are listed as being in Valencia County in the NRIS. I'm missing something; are these all listings that span both counties (even though some appear to just be buildings), are they NRIS errors that should be removed from the Valencia County list, or is it something else? TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 13:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:UTSA Roadrunners football coach navbox[edit]
Hi, over the past couple of days I've been working on a new List of county courthouses in New Mexico. Shortly after finishing it, I saw that you already created a draft version of this same article, which looks pretty similar to what I came up with. I'm sorry for bypassing all your hard work, I didn't think to check if there was a draft article. Anyway, I'm not really sure how to proceed now. I like some features of your list better, especially color coding for the various historic designations, and it looks like you also found a couple of courthouses that I missed. Would it be OK to incorporate some of your formatting and material into the live article? Camerafiend (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fortguy. You have new messages at Camerafiend's talk page. Message added 21:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...[edit]
I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.
The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.
If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.
I see that you've removed the coordinates from at least two articles which already had them, Tsama Pueblo and Salmon Ruins. Would you mind saying why? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last sprint you mentioned that you can read JS, and I got the impression you were interested in learning more. Therefore, I thought you might be interested in what I've been working on, including the extensive notes I present on how each script works (on their talk pages).
So far, there is:
User:The Transhumanist/OutlineViewAnnotationToggler.js – this one provides a menu item to turn annotations on/off, so you can view lists bare when you want to (without annotations). When done, it will work on (the embedded lists of) all pages, not just outlines. Currently it is limited to outlines only, for development and testing purposes. It supports hotkey activation/deactivation of annotations, but that feature currently lacks an accurate viewport location reset for retaining the location on screen that the user was looking at. The program also needs an indicator that tells the user it is still on. Otherwise, you might wonder why a bare list has annotations in edit mode, when you go in to add some. :) Though it is functional as is. Check it out. After installing it, look at Outline of cell biology, and press ⇧ Shift+Alt+a. And again.
User:The Transhumanist/RedlinksRemover.js – strips out entries in outlines that are nothing but a redlink. It removes them right out of the tree structure. But only end nodes (i.e., not parent nodes, which we need to keep). It delinks redlinks that have non-redlink offspring, or that have or are embedded in an annotation. It does not yet recognize entries that lack a bullet (it treats those as embedded).
It is my objective to build a set of scripts that fully automate the process of creating outlines. This end goal is a long way off (AI-complete?). In the meantime, I hope to increase editor productivity as much as I can. Fifty percent automation would double an editor's productivity. I think I could reach 80% automation (a five-fold increase in productivity) within a couple years. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
There's more:
User:The Transhumanist/StripSearchInWikicode.js – another script, which strips WP search results down to a bare list of links, and inserts wikilink formatting for ease of insertion of those links into lists. This is useful for gathering links for outlines. I'd like this script to sort its results. So, if you know how, or know someone who knows how, please let me know.
Script and script feature requests (for outlines) are welcome. The Transhumanist 07:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the work you have been doing categorizing images and creating articles on Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks is awesome. Thanks. Nv8200ptalk 10:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Draft:List of county courthouses in New Mexico, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. » Shadowowl | talk 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fortguy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 11[edit]
Hi, please don't add {{Washington County, Texas}} to the bottom of articles about buildings (historic houses, libraries, theatres, etc.) The county templates are reserved for linked articles about populated places like cities, towns, townships, unincorporated communities, etc. Thanks!– Gilliam (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Lamar St Col-O seal.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Lamar St Col-O seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Lamar St Col-PA seal.png[edit]
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Lamar St Col-PA seal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, thank you for your numerous edits to Texas NRHP-listed places which have been popping up on my Watchlist. Hey, you just moved Cass County Courthouse (Linden, Texas) to Cass County Courthouse (Texas)]], and I moved it back. Please leave this and other courthouse articles at their existing names, of either format. There is long-standing disagreement about the proper disambiguation for these, and a consensus decision/discussion is probably needed. The situation is stable with no one moving them in either direction, except to reverse a new move.
My quick view is that (City, State) disambiguation works best for U.S. places and is consistent with wp:USPLACE guideline and its many discussions. It makes clear you are naming a place, not suggesting there is some statewide court, and avoids begging the questions "where is it?" and "if it is not being disambiguated by place, what is the meaning of STATE here?" ... i think it is clearer to readers and does not raise issues if city,state is used as in all other types of buildings.
Before any moves, there could/should be a big discussion with RFC on the topic; I didn't want to open it earlier but would be able/willing to do it now, if must be. --Doncram (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time to open such a discussion. First off, while there is no consensus naming convention at present and names of current articles are not consistent, I prefer to use just the state name for DAB for courthouses that are still being used as county governance facilities. If I read in an article somewhere else that the Cass County Courthouse is the oldest current courthouse in continuous use in Texas, I shouldn't have to also remember the name of the town (Linden) to go to the page without wading through search results. The WP:USPLACE guidelines, as currently written, seems to apply primarily to populated places rather than to buildings or structures.
At Commons, however, the discussions among their editors that I've seen generally trends toward leaving the name of the city out of the category name. After all, no single state has two counties with the same name. Instead, some Commons editors would actually prefer a naming convention with a comma rather than parentheses such as "Cass County Courthouse, Texas" (an idea that seems to have no traction). Despite this, Commons categories, just like Wikipedia articles, are divided between those with the "(city, state)" name and those with just "(state)".
The idea of a county seat and a county courthouse as a single building housing most of a county's judicial and administrative functions is increasingly becoming a quaint and old-fashioned concept. Even in rural areas, many counties have long ago outgrown their courthouse buildings and house many essential offices in county administration buildings often either across the street at least within a couple of blocks nearby. Sheriff offices, jails, and detention centers are now commonly many miles away from the courthouse building. While looking into San Juan County, New Mexico, I found out that they replaced their old courthouse (now demolished) with a multi-building county complex that more resembles a corporate campus in Simi Valley than anything resembling a traditional courthouse. Still, the one building in that facility that has courtrooms only holds trials for minor matters within county jurisdiction. More serious matters are tried in a state district court building some distance away.
These trends become even more pronounced in highly populous counties. Many of such counties now have "sub-courthouses" or "branch courthouses" located in various places, frequently in towns outside the county seat, where the justice of the peace, constable, and county commissioner of that particular precinct may have offices along with various county administrative departments. In these branch courthouses, you can file a small-claim tort against your incompetent plumber, change your voter registration, renew your vehicle sticker, and pay your property taxes without ever having to go to the county seat.
In my view, a Wikipedia article, certainly one of GA-quality or higher, about a county courthouse would describe, not just the old, historic building that traditionally held that omnibus role if it even still exists, but all such buildings in the modern county while leaving the actual minutiae of county administration to the main county article. As many of these facilities may not be located in the official county seat, putting the name of the county seat in the article title would not be reflective of the scope of the article.
As far as historic county courthouses that no longer serve any county function and if they are located in a former county seat, that is a different matter. In that case, the "(city, state)" name disambiguation would be necessary. Let's go back to the subject that prompted this discussion in the first place, the Cass County Courthouse.
The original Cass courthouse was located, not in Linden, but in Jefferson, Texas which is now in Marion County. That building no longer exists and only deserves mention in the history section about the present courthouse rather than a standalone article. If that building still existed, however, and were noteworthy for being on the National Registry, and if there were plenty of article-building information about it, then I would suggest an article titled "Former Cass County Courthouse (Jefferson, Texas)".
After the county seat was moved from Jefferson to Linden, the original Linden courthouse was a building no longer extant. If, however, that building still existed and was article-worthy, then I would call that article "Former Cass County Courthouse (Linden, Texas)" regardless of the status of the former Jefferson courthouse. Now, consider an alternate universe in which Linden had always been the county seat since the county's creation by the state and there never was a courthouse in Jefferson. In such a scenario, I would call the building simply the "Former Cass County Courthouse (Texas)" since the only DAB needed is to differentiate the county from others with the same name in different states.
At least that's my two-cents worth. I'm sure a hundred other editors will have a couple-hundred other opinions about this. Fortguy (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind my automatic little rant on that. :( I don't mind yours, either. :) You have good information, thoughts to bring into a proper discussion/decision about this stuff. A few quick reactions: 1) what is done at Commons can be mentioned but doesn't hugely matter here; there may or may not be a kind of local consensus there, but here in Wikipedia is where bigger participation in RFCs about article titles etc. happens and if Commons diverges that is just random IMO (so I am being kind of dismissive about Commons, and I grant I don't really know much about any decision processes over there so I may be being unfair); 2) you seem to be coming from deep consideration of courthouse articles … I wonder if you could point to one or a few of the ideal type you seem to have in mind, i.e. of a super great article on the multiple past and present courthouses of a given county; 3) a different perspective or way into this is from looking at disambiguation of NRHP and other buildings more generally. Over the years I have seen arguments that (City) only should be used for movie theatres except for various exceptions, or (State) only for high schools except for various exceptions, depending upon the number of extant articles and upon the number of expected future articles and all sorts of considerations assuming that readers are super-knowledgeable in advance, which could give rise to some super-complicated system that in fact conveys more information (for the super-knowledgeable reader who understands the secret coding). This leads me to want to dismiss all the special considerations and just want to go simple: use (City, State) to disambiguate places. With no secret meanings, with "City, State" plainly conveying that the parenthetical is just a place and not some hint about likelihoods of other high schools of same name existing or not. And courthouses in the U.S. are not all that special relative to all other types of buildings, and we don't want a secret coding system for them, IMO.
And I hope you don't mind my inserting some indents and some subheadings to split this up. --Doncram (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Texas NRHPs and THC vs. National Archives documents[edit]
About the courthouse, I added the NRHP registration document reference, from the National Archives, and a bit of info from it. Hey, I don't remember, are you ever using the National Archives source to get those? I follow my own instructions written into wp:NRHPHELP to do that for Texas NRHPs only. Anyhow, in this case I think what I added, even though short, helps. Because the photo does not jive with 1859 construction! --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me explain the entire nature of what I've been doing with Texas historic sites over the last few months. At some point last year, another editor created a list article of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks. The list article was initially an ungodly copy-and-paste approach from an outdated state database he had which was wholly unworkable as first published. I broke the list, which has well over 3000 entries, into several pages with groups of counties arranged alphabetically. I've also been adding links to articles about the landmarks, if the articles exist, the articles about the towns where they're located, and reference number links to their Texas Historic Commission listings. In the process, I've been correcting addresses along with providing coords, providing images and links to Commons categories when available, and indicating whether the landmarks were listed on the NRHP or had some other state historic designation.
While I've been doing this, I've also been editing all the county NRHP listings--since I have to visit all those article pages anyway--and making some semblance of order to the Commons categories regarding historic site media. If articles about individual places exist, I've been fixing glaring problems such as unsupported infobox parameters (most pernicious are "architect OR builder = " and "governing_body = "), missing images, maps and coords, links to county NRHP and RTHL listings, and other general cleanup to give the articles a standard, consistent feel across them. In other words, I've been conducting an audit of the pages related to the state's historic sites and have made little effort to expand them or improve the actual article text except to remove the occasional patently false and unsupported statements I've come across. After working across the state from west to east for so long, I'm finally beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel that would never have happened if I was engaged in, say, stub elimination.
As far as your question as to whether I use the National Archive, no, I don't. The downloads are too slow. All of the NRHP registration forms on the National Archive can also be accessed from the Texas Historical Commission. For instance, to get the form for the Cass County Courthouse, go to the THC Atlas, click on the "County" tab, select "Cass" from the county drop-down box, and then make sure all the check boxes are deselected except for "National Register Properties". After submission, you'll get a listing of the county's NRHP listings. Select the link to the courthouse, and after the pop-up or new tab appears with the listing, click on the "Files" tab on that page. This will give you a link to the PDF. The download will be much faster than the National Archive.
Similarly, if a THC listing provides a link to a multi-property submission form for an NRHP property, I link to the THC rather than the form from the NPS's website. For some reason, the way the NPS converts the forms to PDF is not natively compatible with some web browsers such as Firefox while the same form from the THC displays just fine. As an example of this, in the infobox of the article for the Pleasant Hill School, also in Cass County, I replaced the MPS link the article's original author provided to the NPS to a THC link to their page on it's NRHP submission as a Rosenwald School, a network of rural schools set up by a charitable foundation in the early 20th Century dedicated to the education of African-American children in the South.
Please, I'd enjoy hearing your feedback on any of these topics. Fortguy (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, very good about your big campaign, and glad to hear you see light at the end!
I think we ought to have elections/designations of state coordinators/curators to serve for a year or so, to do some of what you've done, and other stuff like trying to coordinate with the state and local agencies, e.g. to lobby that they fix their errors and keep stuff available and so on. What you've done in auditor/editor mode sounds great. Thank you for what you've done!
Good stuff about THC sources, which needs to get incorporated into wp:NRHPHELP#Texas. About whether one source is better than a different one for a given browser, that makes me worry that whichever is better in special circumstances is likely to be unknowable and is likely change, and I'd rather include links to both sources. Especially because one of the sources may go away completely in the future, or be temporarily down. And sometimes the different versions include slightly different stuff, e.g. more or different photos, maps, accompanying correspondence documents, etc. In some other states' references I have sometimes put in links to the NPS version as well as to a state/local version. Seems worthwhile to create some good Texas-specific models with multiple links.
There's more I didn't respond to; in general I'm just glad you're here and active. --Doncram (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]
Grouping alphabetically could be Option D. Honestly, I don't like Option A. The THC's regions are inherited from old Highway Department (now TxDOT) routes intended to promote travel, not heritage tourism. These routes used to be promoted as specific lines on highway maps published after they were created in the '70s, but never with surrounding "regions". These routes were built around certain themes of sites on circuits that could be traveled in a weekend, not to be comprehensive of all sites matching those themes. Since TxDOT considers that its mission is to pave over as much of the state as is humanly possible rather than promoting history, they gave up on promoting the travel trails other than continuing to maintain the still-existing route signage (which you can view here on page 153).
THC decided to adopt the travel trails orphaned by TxDOT to structure their version of heritage tourism. The problem with this approach is that THC promotes every community's public historic attraction as long as it is within their arbitrary region rather than whether it is along the route or conforms to the route's theme. As a result, most of the THC's region names have become meaningless, don't reflect how local residents or media would describe where they live or recognize how the general public would describe any part of the state. Worse, because the original TxDOT travel trails were drawn without respect to county lines, these regions overlap which is problematic for the general custom on Wikipedia of grouping historic sites by counties (or urban municipal subsets).
To make matters more perplexing, THC's "regions" don't match TxDOT's districts, although these districts are based upon the bureaucracy of road maintenance rather than history or travel. They also don't match the regions promoted by the state's tourism board. In other words, there is no official or consistent definition of the state's regions, and the ones that may exist in the public imagination tend to change over time.
I'll give more time consider Option B and Option C. I have to leave town and spend much of tomorrow on the road. When I get back, I'll tell you what I think. Fortguy (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been contributing to List of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (Mason-Rusk) and other Texas historic site list-articles, organized by alphabetical groupings of counties. I would think these could better be organized in the 10 regions, in parallel with NRHP lists, too. Where is central discussion area, if any, for the various Texas state historic site lists? --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no discussion of RTHLs. Someone a little over a year ago created the original list of these. It was a monstrosity, not subdivided by any criteria, with all of the 3000+ RTHLs in a single list with the counties being merely a list-column. Imagine navigating that on your cell phone screen! I was the one who broke it down into eight list articles and added county headers just to have something more friendly to navigate. This was an badly needed action, not the implementation of any agreed policy, and certainly open to discussion. Fortguy (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being too negative about the 10-region partition, perhaps because you are too familiar/knowledgeable about its origins, hence contemptuous. I recall an editor in Massachusetts being overly negative about a historic mills district which was important on level of others elsewhere, but they were just too familiar with it to have perspective, IMO. Here, it is terribly important/useful to choose a partition, any partition. It is an editorial decision. I considered an economic development regions partition in comments at Talk:List of RHPs in TX. You or I could simply make up a partition. Any partition would allow grouping NRHPs, RTHLs, etc. The current system of RTHLs grouped into alphabetical chunks of counties is not defensible. I and other NRHP editors did like that at first, i recall it lasting for quite a while for List of RHPs in GA, but it was bogus. You want to allow readers to see the RTHLs in an area. Scattered counties doesn't make sense. And, here in Texas, there is a partition we can adopt which we are not inventing, it is used/promoted to some extent by THC (not a lot, but still they make brochures for each region). Rather than make up a partition ourselves, it is better to adopt an existing partition, like the THC itself did. And the regions are reasonable enough. Hill Country. "Tropical" for the southern part. Mountains. Plains. These make a lot of sense. And the Forest, Lakes, Independence, Brazos are okay too. And we would use the same partitions for NRHPs, RTHLs, etc. and have good linkages between them. This would be great for readers. It is a discretionary editorial decision which we are allowed to make, which would make the Wikipedia far better in Texas. Do keep thinking a bit, please, maybe it will grow on you. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, some other Texas lists oughta be organized this way. E.g. add a sortable region column to List of cities in Texas. Which is an odd list-article having a focus on size (population) but not stating the populations in its main table, and requiring a separate table for the 100 that are largest. Very odd, just give 2010 census population for every one and make it all sortable. Hmm, is there any activity at, say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas? --Doncram (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am back now to thank you and to apologize. I hope you don't mind horribly my complaining, and naming you, in my little tirade at the wt:NRHP discussion recently. Obviously, I got frustrated. I hope you did not take offense, and that my complaining and partly blaming you didn't bother you. It was probably unprofessional of me (well, we're all volunteers, but still).
I do very much appreciate that you responded to my request here, and that you found your way to the discussion at wt:NRHP and participated with what you shared, including your quite sensible review of the Texas situation, including that there is not consensus in Texas about any regions. By the way I happened to catch a little bit of the recent Ted Cruz - Beto O'Rourke debate, in a Youtube video, and I noticed that in Beto's introductory remarks he mentioned/claimed having visited all 254 counties as part of his campaigning. I feel bad for him wasting time in some of the sparser counties up in the panhandle, just because it wouldn't be acceptable for him to say that he had visited the 10 THC regions, instead. I think he oughta have used more of his 90 seconds to try to explain well there were these road routes once, created during Texas centennial, which though they don't go anywhere, they're kinda in nicely named regions, etc. :)
Anyhow, I am sorry, and I do thank you. And I appreciate your other many contributions in the Texas NRHPs and related areas.
About Texas regions, I still think that it is necessary and would be good to adopt some system for the NRHPs and other historic sites, and I still think the THC system is pretty good and good enough and perhaps best, and I expect to come back to it sometime. Happily, there may be another way forward in the general situation, which is to address an easier state, West Virginia, next, instead. Stay tuned! Again, sorry and thanks. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and I never took personal offense. I could tell how frustrated you were after spending time developing a sandbox draft of your proposal and then having no one come to say anything positive about it with some people shitting on it in not very diplomatic language.
Somewhat of an analogy to all these discussions have been various plans since statehood to divide Texas into several states. Texas was annexed into the Union under the Articles of Annexation of 1845. Under the terms of the legislation, Congress agreed to allow Texas to divide itself into as many as five states, a provision now widely seen as anachronistic. The federal government recognized the territorial claims of the former republic, even though most of these lands were also claimed by Mexico and the republic never was able to exercise sovereignty or effectively administer the claim. As a result, Texas originally had a huge stovepipe encompassing everything from eastern and central New Mexico northward into southern Wyoming. The division of the state was considered inevitable at the time, not only due to the size and awkwardness of the boundary, but also because future settlement of part of the region under Texas law would inevitably conflict with the Missouri Compromise.
In the Compromise of 1850, Texas agreed to cede all of the lands beyond its current boundaries in return for federal money the state could use to pay off its outstanding war debts incurred during the Texas Revolution. Nevertheless, Southern politicians still regarded the division of Texas a real possibility to counterbalance future free states until the Civil War.
With Texas reduced to its modern size in 1850 and the abolition of slavery, there hasn't been any compelling reason for the state to break up, but that hasn't kept some people from offering proposals over the years to the point that Wikipedia even has an article on the subject: Texas divisionism. Today, maps creating how Texas could be divided into five states is merely a fun pursuit of posters on Reddit and other message boards. The only proposals I've seen in any major publications, and these are not serious but intended to portray an alternate universe and how these states would represent competing interests in Congress, are these:
Both writers openly admit the flaws of their respective proposals which are legion. To begin with, Silver's are just plain weird. His proposal is what one would expect from a New York-based politics and polling writer with not much experience spending time in the state. Although Griffin's would be more workable, he admits his map would not even be on anyone's radar just two decades earlier, and I would agree that it doesn't reflect the transformations the state has seen in the four decades since. At any rate, these are five-division proposals. I've found with the RTHL lists that eight pages are needed just to keep listings under 500 per page and that is still somewhat unwieldy.
As far as Beto goes, it was a very wise decision of him to visit every county particularly in the Panhandle. Back in the days of the Solid South until the '60s and '70s when conservative, segregationist Democrats dominated the state, there were two groups of counties that bucked that norm: the Panhandle settled primarily by Midwesterners, and the German counties northwest of San Antonio. Until the Legislature recently provided for county clerks to conduct party primaries in the absence of any effective county party organization, many Panhandle counties didn't hold Democratic primaries while many deeply blue and Hispanic South Texas counties didn't hold GOP primaries. Despite this, the counties of the Panhandle and South Plains areas are third only to South Texas and the Trans-Pecos in Hispanic percentages among rural counties as a block. This discouraged many Hispanics from seeking county office in districts representing their own neighborhoods lest they be forced to file under the very toxic GOP brand. Hispanic activists also accuse the Legislature of preventing them from having a majority-Hispanic Texas House district in the Panhandle/South Plains. The problems that plague Hispanic empowerment in Texas politics, large numbers of non-citizens and a disproportionate number of children under 18, are especially pronounced in Northwest Texas where family farms have often been killed off and replaced with large corporate agribusiness that prefers immigrant labor. Beto's campaign stops are generating excitement and enthusiasm everywhere he goes while Republicans lament that even they would rather sit in a dentist chair than sit for a beer with Carnival Cruz. If Beto can generate greater support for himself and his party in a region where Dems underperform their demographics, then that's a bonus for his party in the future giving them a bigger baseline to work from even if the majority statewide hold their noses and vote for Cruz out of GOP loyalty. Fortguy (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]
Hello, Fortguy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hey, I know you mean well, but you are proceeding again with a series of edits introducing errors into Wikipedia, which are ironically self-labelled as fixing errors. I say "again" because I think I raised this with you before, about edits where you change "architect OR builder" (which displays nothing) to "architect" (which then displays stuff). Not to be patronizing, but do you understand the reason why the infoboxes have "architect OR builder"? I would be happy to explain.
For example, this edit by you, in which you add to the infobox display an assertion that D. Woodson was architect of the house. You don't know that. The NRHP document, by my read, does not state who designed the house. I think it is likely that Woodson built the house, or had it built, from a design from a book of designs, say. It is not right to put stuff into articles which you don't know is true or at least supported by sources. --Doncram (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I see you reverted my reversion of your edit there. You reintroduced error. Could you please agree to stop with any further edits like you were doing, until we sort this out. If you and I seriously have a disagreement, could we please agree to have discussion in an RFC or whatever to resolve the issues.
Your new edit summary was "Undid revision 874444701 by Doncram (talk) "|architect OR builder=" is NOT supported by the template and throws the page in a maintenance category". Right, I fully 100 percent understand that the field "architect OR builder" is not supported by the NRHP infobox, so it displays nothing, which is the correct thing to do, because no human being has determined that Woodson is an architect. About it putting the page into a maintenance category, I am not particularly bothered. Should I be bothered? It would be possible to make an edit removing it from a maintenance category which did not introduce false information into the mainspace article. --Doncram (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by you is another example, where you guessed Ole and Sons were architects, when the NRHP nomination document states they were builders and does not state an architect.
Can you agree it is not okay to simply guess? --Doncram (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another edit by you introducing error, this one about the D.O. Harton House, in fact built by contractor D.O. Harton, with no known architect, while you recorded Horton was an architect.
On a few others that I checked you seemed to guess correctly. You might be batting .500, maybe. That is not okay, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning the edit history of this Talk page, I don't find previous discussion on this topic. So I think it was some other Texas NRHP editor that I had discussion with, where I also asked them to stop guessing on architects vs. builders. Perhaps you are not familiar with this issue. The usage of "architect OR builder=" in the NRHP infobox drafts created by editor Elkman, was that editor's choice to head off false information being introduced into articles. Before that, all draft infoboxes from them came in with "architect=" instead, giving a name or multiple names from the NRIS database field which provides names of architects or builders or engineers or artists or other significant persons associated with a NRHP site. There were hundreds or thousands of errors put out, where non-architects were being mis-identified in Wikipedia as architects. There was long-running disagreement/complaints about it all. I myself tried to contribute to resolving the issue somewhat by myself developing many hundreds of articles about builders and architects, as part of sorting out and fixing the sometimes-erroneous info that had gotten into Wikipedia. You or I or anyone is welcome to put in correct info upon reviewing the NRHP document or other sourcing and identifying properly the roles of the various parties. Does this help? I don't know if you understood this before or not. --Doncram (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then they need to be put in HTML comments so they don't clutter up maintenance categories. Besides, the distinction is often not meaningful. Architects and builders collaborate. If the contractor D.O. Harton built his own house according to0 his own tastes and needs, he's the architect whether he has formal schooling in architecture or not. If he's building vernacular houses from local materials and customs for his neighbors, he's probably the architect. Similarly, the CCC and WPA had teams of architects while also building their structures.
Anyway, most of these articles are stubs that have to be expanded at some point upon which these distinctions will be elaborated. But, then again, the project already has a stub category separate from categories reserved for poor template coding addressed as a priority in WP:NRHPTODO. Fortguy (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that in some cases it is accurate to put in one person as both architect and builder, sure. There were various architect/builders in the past, before more specialization happened, who are in some cases credited with both designing and building. But in many more cases, just because someone designed a log cabin, say, that doesn't make them an architect. The point still stands that we don't want to guess at information.
About the error category being used, that is Category:Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters, which is a hidden category, i.e. hidden from most readers. On any NRHP page, I would expect it would almost always mean "whether a signficant person is an architect OR builder or something else is unknown, and it would be nice if someone would figure it out and improve the article". I don't see it as a big problem that "Pages using infobox NRHP with unknown parameters" is what is displayed for you and me who can see the hidden categories, except that this wording has driven you and one or a few others somewhat crazy perhaps. I would support making a change to the NRHP infobox coding so that "architect OR builder" was accepted as a parameter which displayed a differently worded hidden category instead. That would be relatively easy to change, and I don't see why anyone would oppose such a change. Can we move discussion to Template talk:infobox NRHP about this?
Then there are the pages you changed. Do you agree that the changes did introduce errors, I think you must. One way to fix the situation would be to go back through your edits and reverse them all. That would be easiest. Another way would be to take more care and check the NRHP documents where available. But in some of the pages you changed there are no linked NRHP documents. --Doncram (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I want to say: I really appreciate your active contributions in NRHP articles in Texas and elsewhere, and I hope you are not discouraged by my coming to you with complaint about just one of your many types of efforts. I do know you are well-meaning, and do understand it could seem reasonable to proceed as you did, though I happened to disagree with it. In this edit I changed the discussion section title from "Please stop edits introducing guesses about architects vs. builders" to just "NRHP architects vs. builders". I obviously was trying to get your attention before, but I am glad you responded and I hope you don't mind my having used that title. I noticed you haven't edited much since our interaction about this started, which I appreciate on the one hand, i.e. that you listened, but on the other hand I am worried now that you might be discouraged/unhappy about the issue and/or how I raised it.
Hey, you and I both want to improve the NRHP articles, and I am willing to try to revisit all the articles you tackled recently, in order to try to get it right on the architect vs. builder vs. artist or whatever issue. Your edits were fairly quick, generally without checking the NRHP documents I gather, but you also made other improvements in those edits, so it is probably best to just revisit them all and verify/improve upon the one issue, rather than simply roll them back (which might be quicker, but why not just tackle the bigger improvement problem head-on). Not sure how to do this most efficiently, but please see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/architect vs. builder etc cleanup where I am trying to set up a worklist to track cleanup of this batch and other batches where there are issues. I would welcome your participation there. After I get some stuff set up there, I plan also to make some proposal/request at Template talk:infobox NRHP and plan to make some announcement/invitation at wt:NRHP. Does this seem okay as way to proceed? --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me try to explain where I'm coming from. The maintenance categories for articles by unassessed class and importance are wonderful, useful tools. More often than not these categories are empty or, at most, have only a handful of articles listed. This is good. This allows editors who create or expand articles but feel they are too invested in their own work to make an unbiased review seek the eyeballs of disinterested individuals to assess their articles. Because the categories never have a backlog, these articles are handled in an efficient, timely manner. This is how the system is set up. This is how it is supposed to work.
Now, let's consider the editor who misspells one of the words "added", "area", "architect", or "architecture" in the infobox and publishes the edit without catching the mistake. This is commonplace and completely understandable. Everyone makes typo errors from time to time as do I. However, unlike in the text section where the typo is displayed and the reader is probably able to figure out the intention and still glean from the information stated, the misspelling in the infobox will cause the information not to be displayed at all while causing a template error kicking the page into a maintenance category. The way the system is supposed to work is that a project participant will see the article added to the maintenance category and then correct the error, a quick and easy fix, again in an efficient and timely fashion.
That's not what happens here. These simple fixes end up being tossed into a morass of 1500+ and growing list of pages that no one ever touches. I can see from your posts that you don't see this is a problem because it is a hidden category that only editors are aware of. That's not the point! It's not the job of casual Wikipedia readers to fix the project's errors. The category is dysfunctional. It is broken and unable to serve the project's participants by no longer being a useful tool to fix common mistakes. A bloated and backlogged category that ultimately grows to be so huge without anyone addressing the root cause of the disorder ceases to be the tool it is supposed to be, and if it only serves to hide and smother pages requiring only simple fixes, then it is useless. Template errors are not just something that can be glossed over and ignored. They are a very big deal!
Frankly, I wish Elkman had never changed the template parameter, or had changed it to something more neutral such as "creator or builder" or something like that. In any case, it should never have been changed to anything without being implemented in the template code as permissible. If anything, the maintenance category only reflects those articles created with the unsupported parameter since he added it to his infobox generator in 2011. Articles that don't have their architect parameters researched to your liking created before that are still out there. I bet there are lots and lots of them among the project's 45,000+ Stub articles and nearly 20,000 Start articles.
You seem to have a very specific definition of what constitutes an architect, and anything outside of that box seems to drive you "somewhat crazy" as you said above. Frankly, I do consider the man who builds himself a log cabin to be the cabin's architect. He may not have had an architectural degree from an accredited university with a state professional license, but neither did Thomas Jefferson. Although he had no formal architectural training and only designed buildings in his spare time—his day job involved so much declaration and constitution writing, Continental Congressing, and presidenting all out of state from home—he still built Monticello, a building or two at the University of Virginia he founded, and inspired an entire early American architectural style genre. You take the view that many of the listings by architect in the NRIS are mistakes. I take the view that the NPS is implementing an expansive definition of architect for their purposes. If the NPS, the authoritative arbiter of what constitutes an NRHP property, is fine with this use of architect, than I'm okay with it, too, at least in terms of Stub and Start articles. In most of these, the general public wouldn't even care about somebody who is not noteworthy, who they've never heard of, and whose name they won't remember. It's unlikely to be the reason they came to the page in the first place. Obviously, in better quality articles, the roles of those involved in designing and constructing a structure require more elaboration. Words have different meanings in different contexts. If I read a historical account that stated, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the architect of HMG's fiscal policy," I would in no way assume that the minister had anything to do with the design of the building housing the Bank of England.
I hope you are sincere about resolving the problems with these articles, but I say so with trepidation. You are a prolific stub writer who has so often needlessly added to the bloating of this category. Take, for instance, this stub you created (Yes, I fixed it), Dallas Fire Station No. 16. You left the offending "architect_OR_builder" parameter in the infobox despite specifically linking to the nom form and stating who the architect was in the text. The fact that you verified which gentleman listed from the NRIS was actually the architect tells me that you did open the nom form. Even though the nom form stated in the same places twice who was the architect and who was the builder, once in the fill-in-the-blank query portion of the form and also together in one of the paragraphs near the beginning of the long-text historical description of the fire hall, you still chose not to complete the infobox but publish the article with the error thereby contributing to the bloat.
Another example from earlier this year is Pioneer Woman Monument. Back in May, you created this page with an infobox using the incorrect parameter, and little else other than three disjointed sentences and a couple of citations, one with no url, and a notation that the page needed to be a redirect. You then published the page with the template error contributing to the bloat but with an Under Construction template. You then ignored the page with the only subsequent edit being made by a bot that removed the Under Construction tag after inactivity before I finally redirected the page and incorporated the established article about the statue into the project.
Yes, I think a project drive focused on fixing these pages would be worthwhile, but it would only be successful if enough editors participated since, as I mentioned, many if not most of the problem articles are not in the maintenance category and will take a long time to find and fix. I will give this some time and, in the event that no effort on the part of the project materializes which I strongly suspect, then I will resume my efforts to clear up the backlog. I'll compromise and just put the offending parameter in HTML comments so it won't be parsed but to bring the matter to the attention of future editors. Make no mistake, however, that this maintenance category will undergo badly needed maintenance one way or another and again become the useful tool it's intended to be. Continuing to ignore it is unacceptable. Fortguy (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I am busy in real life (including being interrupted while I was posting here). We are agreeing. About Pioneer Woman Monument i certainly meant to do more, or at least mark it better that some improvement was needed; thank you for addressing it. About Dallas Fire Station No. 16, it was just an oversight on my part, I certainly intended to identify which it was, an architect in that case. I do pay a ton of attention to the "architect vs. builder" issue relative to the amount of attention paid by other article creators in creating new articles simply because I know it is an issue. This makes me focus more within the article on that issue, as I did in that example, whether or not the architect is very important in the topic of the fire station. Thank you for refining that.
I appreciate more of what you said too. Anyhow, sure we are agree to get the NRHP infobox changed. Sorry, again i was interrupted and lost the chain of thot here.--Doncram (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barring situations where the coordinates were in error, like the spring you mention at the beginning, your arguments are invalid: you've engaged in years of censorship, years of attempting to prevent articles from having locations, etc. Your message at my talk page only bolsters these problems, as you've demonstrated that it wasn't somehow a huge misunderstanding. I found plenty of examples where you removed citations to US government resources such as the GNIS, and some cases in South Dakota where you removed citations to a NR nomination hosted by the South Dakota SHPO. Such deletions are grossly inappropriate, and if you continue the actions that I reverted yesterday, you will be blocked without further warning. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you really do merely want to get the article out of Category:NRHP list missing coordinates, there's an easy way to do it appropriately. Midway through the documentation for {{NRHP row}} is the following item:
|nolatlon= Set to "y" or "yes" if there is no reasonable expectation the listing's location can be determined
Add it really is as simple as it looks, e.g. this is sufficient for the task. It's meant for any situation in which coords are missing, not just AR situations. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does your list of historic Texas landmarks begin with Hunt and end with Martin counties? I looked for a link to predicessor and sucessor lists but didn't find one.
@foobar, all of the pages in the series are linked by a navigation box located between the article lead and the page's table of contents. This navigation bar is repeated at the bottom of each list page in the "See also" section. The initial page in the series is List of Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks (Anderson-Callahan). Fortguy (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those are hard to see. Originally I had looked at the colorful entrys but they aren't links then the list at the top just link to the counties on the page. Even with your instructions I didn't see the links immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Farm to Market Roads in Central Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles to which you have significantly contributed, are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted:
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FMRD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:US 87 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:UTSA Roadrunners football coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=logo}
