User talk:SounderBruce/Archive 31

Welcome to WP:STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Weatherboxes
In reference to some recent reverts on Anchorage, Alaska and elsewhere, as near as I can tell, the preferred precipitation color in weatherboxes is green. They're not saying the precipitation is green, but the background in the box is green. Happy editing!Jacona (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Paine Field
I have looked at your history and you are quite combative. Please be reasonable. Do not edit war, particularly to support wrong information. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please follow through with the consensus process, which should be delegated to the project level for something of this nature. The airport articles should be standardized in their approach to the Alaska/Horizon situation, so leaving Paine Field as something different is not correct. Also, do not hound editors, as you have done at Talk:Seattle crane collapse.  Sounder Bruce  05:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No hounding was ever done, assume good faith, not bad faith. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The subject, which you edited Paine Field about, has been discussed at great length in the Wikiproject Airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

The consensus decision was that the regional carrier is to be listed, for example United Express, not United. With the same reasoning, "Alaska Airlines" is not to be used because, as of 2019, the flights are operated by Horizon Air, not Alaska. Thank you, Bruce. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion seems to be a !vote between project members and not an actual, binding RfC. Looking further upfield in the archive, there's a thread specifically addressing the Alaska/Horizon issue and it concludes that under WP:COMMONNAME and what secondary sources use (e.g. USA Today, Seattle Times), we should not be making the specific Alaska/Horizon distinction that you're trying to push.  Sounder Bruce  06:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So you go against consensus and only cite vague WP:COMMONNAME? Well, United Airlines is the common name, not United Express. Go to O'Hare Airport's article and edit war there. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For a thread titled "Please do not be combative", Aerostar3, your behavior doesn't seem to be as amenable as the thread would predict. Just a thought. --Rschen7754 06:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So I have made it nicer. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm drawing a conclusion from the talk page discussion you linked; there was no explicit consensus either way, so we fall back upon established, site-wide policy. Seeing as there have been no edit wars over articles that have Alaska by Horizon service (e.g. Sea-Tac Airport, Boise, Portland), there is no reason to be warring over this. If you want to desperately see this change happen, propose a formal RfC and get both project and non-aviation editors to agree to a consensus. Now please stop pinging me every few minutes.  Sounder Bruce  06:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus. 63% vs. 19%. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I never pinged you. Not once. As for RfC, if you want one for Paine Field, let me know and link it to me. Otherwise, we follow consensus of the Wikiproject Airports discussion of 2018. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By posting on here and making multiple changes, you're lighting up my inbox. The Jan. 2018 discussion had a grand total of 16 votes, and did not produce an overwhelming opinion, and it was never formalized as a policy in any shape or form. Get the project to agree to the change, then it can be accepted; otherwise, Paine Field must follow the other articles in their formatting, for the sake of standardization.  Sounder Bruce  06:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for MLS Cup 1996
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Harris & Frank
Hi, what would be your suggestions for improvement on Harris & Frank? Keizers (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To start, I would use second-level headers for sections, MDY format for dates, actual clippings from Newspapers.com instead of page links (which aren't accessible without subscription), and rename the "Branches" section to something more appropriate like "Locations". The actual addresses are not notable and violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article needs more information about the company and its lineage, as it provides little to no context today.
 * Again, there's no need to rush these kinds of entries out. You can take time to incubate them in a sandbox or draft while gathering more information.  Sounder Bruce  00:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I actually hadn't thought about the MDY (assuming this is used only for North America-oriented information rather than an international format); "Locations", or using clippings. Thanks. I removed template so see if it is up to standard pls.Keizers (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I actually hadn't thought about the MDY (assuming this is used only for North America-oriented information rather than an international format); "Locations", or using clippings. Thanks. I removed template so see if it is up to standard pls.Keizers (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

United States men's national soccer team
So I thought about co-helping with you to try and help the United States men's national soccer team page into a Good Article as you properly want to see your national team be a good article. Also with you still in the shot for the WikiCup title, it could be a easy way to get a good bonus for a page which has over 50+ different Wikipedia versions. Matt294069 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely on my long-term to-do list, but I feel like the undertaking would all but put a stop to my other ongoing initiatives (especially my MLS Cup good topic). I wouldn't have enough time until summer break, if not a bit later than that.  Sounder Bruce  03:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fine and I understand what you are trying to say. At least I know that it's on the list. Matt294069 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation tags at article Milton Keynes
Thank you for your input on this. The GA reviewer suggests that it may be a Featured Article Candidate so it is helpful to identify first any obstacles to that. Some of your tags I understand, but others not, so would you clarify please?
 * At the very minimum, every paragraph and standalone statement must have an inline citation to meet GA, let alone FA, standards. The GA review clearly missed the ten or so spots I pointed out, so it's best to address them now before going to FAC. I'll have a few replies below, but please understand that this is a bit of extra work that shouldn't need explanation.  Sounder Bruce  23:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reviewer did not "miss" these "spots". I disagree that most of these points require citation. See WP:WHYCITE. But there is no harm in adding citations for the benefit of those who take a contrary view.  Tim riley  talk   06:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"and late Industrial Revolution settlements such as the railway towns of Wolverton (with its railway works) and Bletchley (at the junction of the London and North Western Railway with the Oxford–Cambridge Varsity Line)."
 * Wolverton and Bletchley

What do you think needs to be cited here? That this junction actually exists? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either move the earlier citation down, duplicate it, or add a new citation that helps tie things together.
 * ✅ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This local irritation might be a candidate for deletion but... "In contrast, the later districts planned by English Partnerships have departed from this model, without a road hierarchy but with conventional junctions with traffic lights and at grade pedestrian crossings."
 * English Partnerships

... I am unclear what you think should be cited? If I can find a citation that Civic interest groups have complained about it, would that hit the spot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Give examples of those later districts and add citations that discuss those examples.
 * These citations will take some time to find, though I know it exists. To revisit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am inclined delete the footnote lest it give the invalid impression that the citation supports it [footnote shown here in italics for our mutual convenience {{quote|"They divided the Ouzel Valley into 'strings, beads and settings'. The 'strings' are well-maintained routes, be they for walking, bicycling or riding; the 'beads' are sports centres, lakeside cafes and other activity areas; the 'settings' are self-managed land-uses such as woods, riding paddocks, a golf course (which did not happen at this site) and a farm". How can I prove a negative? Or are you objecting to OpEd inside a quote? (Guilty as charged, I shall delete it). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ouzel Valley

Yes, even American football :-) {{quote|Most other sports are represented at amateur level.}} Would it be sufficient to wlink that sentence to Sport in Milton Keynes or do you really suggest that a citation is needed for every sport? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sports
 * Name a few teams/leagues from notable sports and add citations that discuss them.
 * {{not done}}. These amateur teams are not notable (the notable sports have professional teams); a line has to be drawn somewhere and that between professional and amateur is defensible. Selecting none avoids challenges of unfair preference that can only end in tears before bedtime. If you continue to disagree, please used the article talk page to discuss. For now, I have linked to Sport in MK as I proposed, and changed 'most' to 'many'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear what is being sought here? {{quote|Data on the economy, demography and politics of Milton Keynes are collected at the Borough level and are detailed at Economy of the Borough and Demographics of the Borough.}} Do you suggest that I repeat the citations in those two articles? [Footnote: at the time that sentence was written, it was impossible to extract the Census data for just the city. That is no longer completely true as the demographic data has since become available. But the main question still stands.] I really am unclear what you have in mind. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Borough-level statistics
 * This is an inappropriate use of links and should be replaced with a hatnote or repeated data.
 * {{done}} Changed to section hat note (an article hat note would be wp:UNDUE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You ask for a citation for "Milton Keynes has six railway stations". But the rest of the paragraph goes on to list those six stations, so again I don't understand the issue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Railway stations
 * Surely there would be a map of local railways that could be cited, or perhaps a news article comparing them.
 * {{done}} though I am unconvinced it is useful. A pedant might point out that the map does not show any settlement boundaries - nor should it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

On {{rws|Woburn Sands}}, the text reads {{quote|Woburn Sands railway station, also on the Marston Vale line, is in the small town of Woburn Sands just inside the urban area.}} Are you asking for evidence that Woburn Sands is in the urban area? I can certainly do that using the Census 2011 citation used elsewhere but I suspect that I may be missing the point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Woburn Sands
 * {{done}} cited census map again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want citations for the routes taken by the roads through the city? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Roads
 * Yes, it's quite simple to just cite a local or national map/road atlas.
 * {{done}} --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I hesitated to cite these services as they are very subject to change, have multiple operators, and in general per NOTGUIDE but can do so if you really think it appropriate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regional coach services
 * A general source that just mentions the existence of such services is fine.
 * {{done}} --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I realise that some editors deprecate Google Maps as a source for distances. Is there an acceptable alternative? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Airports
 * News articles about the airport (or incidents at the airport) often have the distance from the city center listed. If all else fails, the airport website might also mention it, or you can use a paper map with a scale/distance markers. Google Maps is not totally reliable for distances, since it by default chooses the fastest route by driving distance.
 * {{done}} (distancecalculator.globefeed.com). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can cite this one! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Balancing lakeshores as leisure amenity
 * {{done}} --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Question of reverts of reliable source related to I-5 Skagit River Bridge
Is the source citation I did not a reliable source because I first believed that the information I got what you just reverted had the information in it unless if its unconstructive. Right?NicholasHui (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A blog (hosted on a blogfarm) written by a self-described "trash pop culture dumpster diver" is most definitely not a reliable source. In fact, most of the webpage seems to have been lifted from the Wikipedia entry, which could trigger citogenesis. It's better to keep the information on the article and have the tag there to call attention to it.  Sounder Bruce  00:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the information I saw on your edits, I did not know they could be disruptive. I am trying to learn how to properly edit those stuff correctly. But thank you for your patience NicholasHui (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC) 24.84.228.210 (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post at Hickoryshirt's talk.
I smell stinky socks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC links
BBC primary domain is .co.uk not .com Govvy (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * BBC.com is what all non-UK readers are redirected to and will eventually be used within the UK by default. I would rather not have the semi-automated tools like Checklinks throw up redirect errors because of the domain change.  Sounder Bruce  07:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * O, ffs, either fix the problems or don't bother editing the page, also https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk?ver=alpha&utm_expid=.NFDkwnQTSf2ZNn_fyyCLoQ.2&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alexa.com%2Fsiteinfo 63% of count is UK, which is .co.uk domain, .com makes up the rest. It should be fixed to the primary domain, also don't run WP:OWN on the article over me! Govvy (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that the BBC will ever adopt bbc.com as the primary domain for UK-based readers? – PeeJay 07:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Link above states that BBC is transitioning most of its content to the .com domain and has already done so for some of their sub-divisions.  Sounder Bruce  14:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So the move hasn't happened yet for a lot of the website, and using BBC.com currently creates a redirect for most of the BBC's readership. I think you forcing people to use BBC.com is pretty pointless at this stage. – PeeJay 14:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, future-proofing is the goal and it has the added benefit of making the content easily verifiable across continents, as we'd be seeing webpages that are more similar and sharing the same URL.  Sounder Bruce  05:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, make the changes when the change actually takes effect, not before. – PeeJay 08:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Pete Fewing
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Nels Bruseth
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Anote Tong talk page
Thanks so much for putting all in order. I am not skillful on Wikipedia. :) Kind regards. -- --LLcentury (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

On what basis?
On what basis did you revert my edits to "Century 21 Exposition"? I am most concerned about the "1962 Seattle" one, because it has a lot of links that surely give people a lot more information about the Expo. My World's Fair page has been praised by bona fide World's Fair historians. There's nothing commercial about it. It doesn't seek donations. Its aim is to inform and give visitors a chance to experience the Fairs, purely. I'm serving the public and giving them an opportunity to learn and enjoy more than the Wikipedia article provides. They read the Wikipedia article, and my page is just as deserving as the other external links, because it gives Wikipedia visitors more. On what basis did you kill it? PaulSank (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You must follow the External links policy when adding links to articles. Your website should not be linked by yourself without consensus from Wikipedia editors, like those at the EL noticeboard, and needs to follow the stricter guidelines on Conflict of interest and especially the self-promotion section. You are welcome to maintain your fansite, but it would also fall under links to avoid (specifically section 11). If someone else adds your site, then that's better in our view, but otherwise you must recuse yourself from adding your own links.  Sounder Bruce  03:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This bit about the EL Noticeboard appears to be made up by you, because it doesn't appear in the other links you have provided here. I don't see anything on the links-to-avoid list that applies to mine. I have no conflicts of interest. And the self pub paragraph starts, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason", and my 1962 Seattle is HIGHLY relevant. So AGAIN, I insist on specifics, ON WHAT BASIS?

PaulSank (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have replied to somebody else (below), but you have not replied to me. Good, because it suggests that I have successfully clarified my position. I will now restore my link, because it's highly relevant and useful, and I derive no benefit whatsoever beyond the pleasure of helping people learn more about and enjoy more of Century 21. PaulSank (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to handhold you through the various processes on Wikipedia. I will say this: your attitude so far is more akin to a desperate spammer than someone with the best interest of the project in mind, and I recommend that you try to seek out guidance from the noticeboard or another forum with multiple users who are better versed in COI than I. Your website appears to be a repository of links, which is helpful but not particularly useful, and may also fall under the WP:ELNEVER restrictions on copyright, which is taken very seriously. Please try to understand this site's policies and rules before attempting to re-add your links.  Sounder Bruce  02:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Spammer", no way, I have nothing commercial to offer. As for the rest of what you say here, somehow it clarifies the issue better, so yes, I'll now go to the ELN. Thank you. PaulSank (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's World Cup 1999
Thanks for all your hard work - the article was in dire need of improvement. I've stopped working on the article since you've been improving it so much - anything in particular you could use a hand with? SportingFlyer  T · C  06:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit was the kick that I needed to get motivated (in time for the upcoming tournament and anniversary as well). I'll be finishing up the prose match summaries and aftermath before going back and adding more of the preparation and logistics. At this point, the more pressing need is to create articles for the referees with red links and shore up the player articles where appropriate, as I expect there will be some residual traffic as readers get funneled away from the main article.  Sounder Bruce  07:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree on that section as the referees are really the outlier for this article to possibly go GA. You could remove those links to the referees that don't have articles yet but then that brings up the question of is it really necessary to do such a thing. I'm also going to add, could be their any pictures that we might be able to use to make this look um good that would be suitable other than the stadium pictures. Matt294069 (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll add a few player pictures once I'm finished with the expansion. Beyond that, I'll have to look around and see if the U.S. and California governments have uploaded decent photos from the event (since they are PD).  Sounder Bruce  00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many of these referees are actually notable when I started doing WP:GNG searches, so I've gone ahead and started working on the 1995 World Cup article, which also needs a ton of work. Appreciate all the work you've put in so far. I'm stunned these articles were in this state for so long. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck and make sure to use MOS:DASH in scores (e.g. 3–1), access-dates in citations, and other tricks that I had in my 1999 write-up. I'll get to the 2003 tournament a bit later (and am aiming to take the 2003 final article to DYK) as the Women's World Cup progresses.  Sounder Bruce  04:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that this isn't related but is in some way, but I thought I would work on the women's side too. My first target is try and get Sam Kerr page up to a better standard then what it was at the start as we have 22 GA Women's footballers with none of them being from my home country (Australia). I will also try and help with tiny errors that you might of missed. Matt294069 (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Women's World Cup 1999
Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup
The article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1999 FIFA Women's World Cup for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup
The article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1999 FIFA Women's World Cup for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing references to citations
Thank you for your suggestion. I will take that information of how I will cite it down the next time I edit those details. NicholasHui (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Washington State Route 142
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable doubt
What was the reason you reverted my edit in the Campeones Cup page? I just added a reference from a sports media where it is stated that is a just friendly tournament and not endorsed by Concacaf. Did I something wrong? I just want to know. --ZeiramXR (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't always necessary to cite information in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Frankly, the issue of whether or not this is a "friendly" tournament isn't important at all, and we shouldn't be accepting low-quality foreign sources just to clarify such a tiny detail.  Sounder Bruce  01:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand your point. But the reason I wanted to clarify the issue is that, until recently, the Tigres page in English on wikipedia cited the Campeones Cup as an official tournament within their honors. Another important point is that in the page in Spanish many people cited the page in English as evidence that it could be considered an official tournament. On the page in Spanish there has been a heated debate on whether this tournament is official or not. And that page that I used as a reference, which is a sports media quite famous in Mexico, is the first one that clarifies it openly. But well, I understand all the points you mentioned and I think they are pretty valid, so I will not insist on modifying it. I just wanted to put my reasons. Best regards.--ZeiramXR (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martina Müller ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2003_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup_Final check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2003_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup_Final?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Im Eun-ju
Hello! Your submission of Im Eun-ju at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ivar Haglund Seattle Times Article
Howdy, I linked to the new URL since the old URL ends up at a page not found error. —Cliffb (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Err.. Never mind.. I see what you did now.. That works well —Cliffb (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When linking to pre-2015 articles on the Times website, replace "seattletimes.nwsource" with "old.seattletimes" and it creates a valid link with the original formatting (like so). The new format strips away the images, graphics, and sometimes entire sections of the article.  Sounder Bruce  06:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Washington State Route 99
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, re: Seattle's downtown bus tunnel
Hi Bruce.

I must admit, I'm a bit perturbed right now.

I live in Seattle. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that there is NO BUS TUNNEL IN SEATTLE, hasn't been for years and now, there are no busses in the TRAIN TUNNEL.

And the Seattle Post Intelligencer, my source, is a Seattle-based online newspaper that's been a news authority here for more than 1.5 centuries. Do you even live in Seattle?!

Wikipedia should be accurate. Whenever I seek to help ensure that, some anonymous know-it-all wants to smack that down. BTW, there are, literally dozens of common-knowledge assertions in that article that are uncited. Because I'm not part of the right click or org, I get singled out?

Stop wasting my precious time, please!

Thanks,

Xtian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.2.118 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All facts must be cited with a reliable source and all claims must be verifiable. The P-I article literally called it the bus tunnel, and it is still a common name...just because bus service is now out of the tunnel, doesn't mean the phrase is suddenly extinct and unrecognizable. Lead sections in articles do not need to be cited (per WP:LEADCITE) if the supporting text is backed up by citations...this being a featured article judged against stricter criteria, one would have to look very thoroughly for even a single possible slight on that front. And yes, I am a Seattle native, but please do be discriminatory.  Sounder Bruce  05:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enumclaw, Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yakima Valley ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Enumclaw%2C_Washington check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Enumclaw%2C_Washington?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sinking of Hableány
Stephen 02:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Not in an edit war
Hello there. You left a note on my talk page. My practice is not to involve myself in edit wars. Making two reversions is not an edit war. Please think carefully before making similar comments. Springnuts (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two reverts of the same content without any explanation or attempt at dispute resolution is the very definition of an edit war. WP:3RR applies, of course.  Sounder Bruce  22:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a carefully worded edit summary of the second and final revert. You were heavy-handed. Springnuts (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

… Another time why not leave a friendly note on a fellow editor’s talk page instead of the full “you are in an edit war” message? With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You still haven't given a proper explanation as to why you consider "collided with", a basic term used on almost all news coverage of the incident, is a problematic phrase in terms of POV. We have talk pages for a reason.  Sounder Bruce  06:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you ask, generally to collide with something implies that there is some movement towards the thing collided with. So, a parked car cannot collide with anything. But I’ve parked car can be involved in a collision. In this case it is far from clear that the smaller vessel was moving towards the larger one. So being “in collision with” makes no assumptions about the positions, speed or possible fault of either vessel. Collision here is a verb, not a noun, however “in a collision with” would also be grammatically correct. But it is not a biggie, which is why, after to revert, I left the issue alone. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Apologies for double post. And typos, I’m dictating into the phone) Springnuts (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your use of "in collision with" is still highly incorrect. The phrase "the ship was traveling on the Danube [...] when it was in collision with a much larger ship" just doesn't sound natural, whereas "when a much larger ship, the Viking Sigyn, collided with the Hableány" sounds correct. The only way to make "in collision with" work there is to add an article: "when it was in a collision with", but it is still clunky. This was not about POV at all, but about basic sentence structure.  Sounder Bruce  17:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * well, “when a much larger ship, the Viking Sigyn, collided with the Hableán” works for me, But I make a practice of not making further edits in this sort of situation. So please go ahead and make the change if you feel it is better than what is there at the moment. Springnuts (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you, or another editor, has now changed the article in the way we discussed above. If it was you, then well done. Springnuts (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, I currently have Fred Keenor at peer review with an eye to taking a run at FA. This is the second peer review I have listed but neither have garnered any responses yet. I was wondering if you would be able to have a look if you have the time. Feel free to skim and make it as light as you like, I'm happy to iron out any real issues at FA but it would be nice to know I'm not missing anything stupidly obvious. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try and take a look at it while on my trip, though I may have to save my comments for a week or so. Thanks for reviewing the 1999 World Cup, which is now in the FAC queue.  Sounder Bruce  06:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, no rush. Have a nice trip! Kosack (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

WWC 1999
Hi Bruce - Sorry I meant to get back to you re the peer review and to thank you for the podcast link. A v. interesting series (Anson Dorrance has a great voice - I could listen to him all day). I have a vague memory that a joint male/female World Cup was mooted at one stage – but that the 99ers torpedoed it. I can't find where I might have read it though - probably in one of Jean Williams' offerings. If I can source it in a way that's directly relevant to '99 I might try to add it later. I also wondered if you thought the draw/World X1 fixture would be worthy of a stand alone article? As you'd have a better idea of the coverage I'd be interested if you thought we'd have a reasonable prospect of defending an AfD? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Listening to the podcast while reading some of the same quotes in The National Team has been a pretty fun experience so far (and is fueling a desire to rewrite the USWNT article soon). I hadn't heard of the double-header proposal, but I'd imagine it would have been considered before the first tournament in 1991...I'll try and see if it shows up in any of the sources I have available. I don't think that the draw could survive as a standalone article, though that section in the article could be expanded with more detail if necessary (or the friendly could be moved to a separate article on the World Stars).  Sounder Bruce  17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Washington Eastern Railroad
Any clue what happened to the Washington Eastern Railroad page? When I type it in it redirects me to the Eastern Washington Gateway Railroad. They are two completely different railroads that existed at two separate times owned by two different company’s. Did it get deleted or what. I managed to see that the last edit was by you so I figured you’d know. Eìre 1916 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 UEFA Champions League Final
Yogwi21 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

hey
Talk:List of national memorials of the United States: please do fix the situation!!! :) --03:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Marta Award
Hmlarson (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final
The article 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final
The article 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Lynnwood and Marysville
Hi why did you reverted in Lynnwood and Marysville? New number of population in 2018 Estimate from U.S. Census Bureau. 38,511 population in Lynnwood. 69,779 population in Marysville. Thank. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep changing the formatting in other sections, particularly after the headings. Also, the growth rate for Marysville is not calculated correctly and must be cited from a pre-calculated source (like a newspaper, as it originally was). The crime rates infobox in Lynnwood must match the prose as well, so if you don't update that then please don't bother; sometimes it's best to not update on a yearly basis, as some cities experience very little to no population growth.  Sounder Bruce  21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 Reminder
Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Sound Transit s-line template replacement
Hi Bruce, I've developed an module for Sound Transit which combines the existing three s-line template groups (Sounder, Link Light Rail, and ST Express) into a single module: Module:Adjacent stations/Sound Transit. I've added a couple sample usages so you can see how it would differ in presentation from the current templates. I'd appreciate any feedback that you might have. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far, but I do think we need to differentiate between modes and services, and also keep the bold headings for Future/Former services. How flexible would the module be for other parameters?  Sounder Bruce  01:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolded. The module's pretty flexible in most respects, but it's not possible to vary the system title in the initial header (currently displaying in the example as "Sound Transit", displaying with s-line as "Sounder", "Link", and "Express"). The best that could be done would be to add full-width headers, over and above the Sound Transit header, to indicate mode. I've mocked up an example at right. To keep the single-row headers differentiating between modes we'd have to abandon the merged concept and go with three separate modules, as it currently done with s-line. See Module:Adjacent stations/NJ Transit for a similar example where two modes (commuter rail and two different light rail systems) were collapsed into a single module. Newark Broad Street station has a working example. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The example looks pretty good, though I would prefer to have a bit more vertical padding around the logos (and that should be easy enough to add later). This new system should make it pretty easy to update the termini as new extensions open up, no?  Sounder Bruce  02:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, updating termini is very straightforward--it's all in the line definition for the module, instead of being in one of the s-line sub-templates. If a line needs to be renamed that's also pretty simple. Mackensen (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

About My Edit on the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup Page
Hi Bruce,

I noticed that you have reverted the edit I made on the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup page. I realize you were trying to help and, because of that, want to thank you for that. I just wanted to write this to explain my thinking in regards to the edit I made to help you understand my perspective. The first thing I want to bring up is that I've seen similar kinds of added detail in other lead sections of Wikipedia articles. For example, in the lead section of the men's 1982 FIFA World Cup, when bringing up the largest margin of victory achieved in tournament history in Hungary's 10-1 over El Salvador, the lead section brings up the other two margins of victory that matched it, the teams involved in each, the exact scores, and even the years they took place. Other examples of this type of added detail in lead sections can be found in the lead sections of articles like the 2007 UEFA Champions League final (discussing the last meeting in a final between AC Milan and Liverpool, including the scoreline and outcome of said previous final meeting), Lothar Matthaus (discussing Mexico's Rafael Marquez equaling his record of number of World Cups played in 2018, even mentioning the 2018 match that caused this to happen officially), among other examples. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that I felt that the sentence I edited felt incomplete given that it only ended with "until 2019" without any idea of what happened in 2019 to make this record no longer stand. As such, I felt the sentence would benefit from adding a bit more detail to let readers know a bit (not too much) more about what happened in 2019 to make the margin of victory record achieved in the 2007 World Cup no longer stand. I don't think that adding this detail detracts from the article or leading section in any way, but only enriches the article (even if in a small way) given the context it provides in terms of the record being broken.

With that said, out of respect for you, I will not do anything in regards to this specific edit of mine unless I have your permission. I will leave your reversion of my edit as is until then. As I said earlier, I just wanted to explain what I was thinking when I made my edit. I hope you can reconsider my edit, but if you still disagree with my edit, that's fine. I just wanted to get my viewpoint out there.

Thank you and have a wonderful day,

Wildboy7

--Wildboy7 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , that level of detail is not appropriate for a WP:LEAD, which should be written in summary style. It belongs in the group sub-page or sub-section, depending on what direction the article evolves in, but we should certainly not be including the scores of the 2019 match in the 2007 lead. A mention of the record being broken in 2019 is enough context for the lead.  Sounder Bruce  02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. Sorry about that. Reading the article you linked to me on the leading sections on Wikipedia articles, I have a better understanding on what you're talking about now. Thank you for your help. I'll take your advice into consideration when I'm editing this type articles in the future.


 * Thank you and have a wonderful day,
 * Wildboy7


 * --Wildboy7 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Darrington, Washington
It is not *critical* that these dates be added, but there is no need to reject them outright. Each entry provides a quick summary of the individual, and their location in the historical timeline of the city immediately establishes whether they are a contemporary presence, historical figure, etc. This makes it useful, and is why I support the anon's entry. This is not an attempt to establish precedent, so just look at it in the context of this article. If the GAN committee can point to an actual policy or guideline discouraging such detail, they will point it out and it can be dealt with it then. You've been around long enough to know that this won't make or break the nomination. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, if you feel really strongly about this, do what you will. But I would prefer to see a stronger rationalization than simply that it's outside the norm. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)