User talk:SounderBruce/Archive 36

DYK for Pine Street
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Manette Bridge
Manette Bridge was really out of date... describing a steel truss bridge that was demolished in 2011 or 2012. I just corrected the lede. Do you think there should be a separate article for the new bridge? I'm not absolutely sure it has the same name. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should probably be about the original bridge, as it had more history, but both bridges can be accomodated without splitting. WSDOT seems to refer to the new bridge as Manette Bridge (e.g. in this press release from 2018) and the Kitsap Sun also re-uses the name (e.g. this article from 2019). I'll take a crack at it a bit later, since I've been meaning to work on some bridge content for a while.  Sounder Bruce  05:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I got really confused for a minute when I realized two different bridges were under the same name at Commons. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Commons might be a case where the two should be split, with new bridge pictures under Category:Manette Bridge (2011).  Sounder Bruce  05:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final
The article 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2003 FIFA Women's World Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal standard of England (1406–1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Great Northern School District
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox RfC
I'm proposing a redesign containing visual, technical and other improvements to Infobox radio station and Infobox broadcast. The discussion is located at WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal. As an editor active in editing radio and/or TV station articles, or in recent changes to the templates in question, I wanted to make you aware of this proposal and kindly ask for your feedback. Raymie (t • c) 05:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Spacing produces quite handy "columns" (unseen by the reader), which inevitably crumble. I don't mind at all tidying up but... please. p.s.

1999 WWC final attendance
Hi,

How would you prefer to put it? There's enough evidence to say 1999 was a U.S. women's sports record, but the world record claim is more than doubtful by now, and does a disservice to women's sports and its history. (The sources repeating it were often in good faith, but were unreliable themselves.)

The 1971 attendances aren't going away, so it will be necessary to mention them in the 1999 article if it's going to stay relevant.

Apologies for not following WP:LEADCITE, which I didn't know about. It doesn't seem to apply to everything... like this uncited sentence in the introduction:

The tournament was considered a "watershed moment" for women's sports in the U.S.

Nowhere in the article is this backed up – no source uses the phrase for women's sports in general, only for 1999's significance for soccer or the USWNT.

- Demokra (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The project operates with a core sourcing policy of Verifiability, which feeds into Verifiability, not truth being the priority. While the attendance boasting by FIFA may not be accurate, it was quoted in several reliable sources at the time and in the years since, so it must be weighed against other research. For what it's worth, the 1971 figures may not be accurate either due to the counting methods; the 1999 final's figure is likely based off gate counts, which should be accurate.
 * I have changed the watershed moment to point towards women's soccer, though it did have a noticeable impact on women's sports in the U.S. as a whole (which is mentioned in some of the books I remember reading a while ago when writing the entry).  Sounder Bruce  06:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bruce, thanks for the reply.


 * It's a pity there aren't more direct comparisons of attendance – most of the research on Mexico is new, although the event is much older.


 * You yourself added a passage to the 1999 final article: "...although the unofficial 1971 Women's World Cup final at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City was seen by an estimated 110,000 people.[22] [BBC.com ref.]".


 * Is it OK if I add the same passage to the 1999 article#Final section as a caveat? If it won't destabilize the universe. The tone of the '99 article is very..."definite" on this, in a way that is no longer appropriate. – Demokra (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately it belongs only in the final article, as the main article's summary is supposed to be short and straight to the point. I have changed the wording of the first sentence to emphasize the record as a claim, but that's as much as is needed there. Interested readers can click through to the linked article on the final to see more.  Sounder Bruce  05:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That is nowhere near enough.

Two other times the article talks unquestioningly about 90,185 "(setting) a world/international record", which now changes mysteriously to be only a "claim" in the Final section, with no further information. The supposed record is a central part of the 1999 article.

Just adding the passage above (which you wrote) would be a lot less inconsistent. The 1999 article now seems to be designed to mislead on this issue.

Does every change need to go through you? You're not the page's WP:OWNER, and "Featured Article" is not a euphemism for "Do Not Edit". - Demokra (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you scroll further down, there is a section specifically about stewardship of Featured articles (WP:FAOWN) that instruct users to civilly discuss significant changes. Featured articles are expected to use high-quality sources to back up claims, and so far I have seen none that would totally disprove the claim made by FIFA in 1999. The 1999 final article is not expected to need that level of source scrutiny at the moment, which is why the claim can be stated there (and belongs there anyway, per the house Summary style).  Sounder Bruce  05:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Civil Aviation ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Netaji_Subhas_Chandra_Bose_International_Airport check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Netaji_Subhas_Chandra_Bose_International_Airport?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your reverted changes
Thank you for your feedback. I noticed you reverted several of my edits for not adding a citation. Some edits were merely to improve the readability, organization and clarity of the article, and did not add or change any content.

I'll consider your feedback for future edits I make on articles about living people.

Best, Chanjagent (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please correct your errors...
Dear Sounderbruce; I am responding to your note where you admittedly took the liberty to remove the City of University Place the notation of Dr. Stan Flemming as the Founding Mayor of the city. I believe if you had taken the time to do the proper research, you would have found under the City's very first Proclamation dated August 31, 1995 the listing of Mayor Flemming, who signed that proclammation as the Founding Mayor and all other first city councilmembers. Please do not think you're the only subject matter expert on this topic. Likewise, would be grateful if you would so kindly reinstate the deletions you saw fit to remove.

With regards to Peach Acres, that property is equally of a historical nature and is a stand-alone address/site on map quest and other map location sites. Please do not take liberties that you are not knowledgeable or entitled to forward. thank you, steve Stevefranklin06 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Talk Page Watcher), the burden to provide a source about a change in the material lies upon the person who makes the change and not the one who reverts. Do you have any reliable sources to justify the change?  Java Hurricane  07:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , all information on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source (such as a book from a reputable author/publisher, or a major regional newspaper). As for your specific changes, there are guidelines for city articles that prohibit adding lists of people without enough notability to have their own standalone article. You can re-add the information with proper sources, but the lists should not be re-added.  Sounder Bruce  07:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

master planned community is just a redirect to planned community
We have no article about it as a separate category, rather than a brand label for an added level of developer pretentiousness, which is all I saw in the couple of dozen articles using the term. Real estate developers have a well-earned reputation for mendaciousness and audaciousness, and their jargon is often a disgrace to the human race as language-using animals. If you really believe that it exists as a distinct thing in and of itself, please turn the redirect into a solid, well-sourced article, and I'll applaud your research and cheerfully revert myself. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , while it is jargon, it has extensive use in reputable sources like The Seattle Times and The Everett Herald, especially in reference to Mill Creek. The planned community article uses the term quite a bit in the U.S. subsection, so a separate article would not be necessary at this time.  Sounder Bruce  00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article uses the phrase, but never defines it nor distinguishes it from any other kind of planned community. It reeks of fad and jargon rather than actual meaning, like saying "at that point in time" rather than "then". I am not going to edit war with you, but if you think the phrase actually means something, then please edit planned community to tell us what it is that it means. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Tukwila International Boulevard station, about "the other end of Seattle's light rail system, with the third-to-last stop, an elevated station overlooking parking lots, suburban chain stores, and majestic mountains and hills. The station also boasts a pretty nice design, with a roof that is meant to evoke the wings of an airplane"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Darrington Ranger Station NRHP nom
Hey, I was able to find the National Register nomination for the ranger station at the National Archives website (the place to look for them now). It really isn't much help, though, as far as historical information ... after a lengthy description of the buildings involved, the statement of significance where (from my experience with New York's SHPO) I would expect to find some information about how it came to be and how it has evolved is a single, boilerplate paragraph on page 6. Oh well ... good enough ror government work in this instance I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Louise Lieberman
You declined Draft:Louise Lieberman. Please note the notability guidelines for soccer. WP:NSOCCER. She meets them. She played for the Washington Freedom of the Women's United Soccer Association. Which is on the list the notability guideline points to. The fact that she played for it is prominently mentioned in the article. With refs. There are more refs if you like. I would appreciate it if you were to revisit this, and promote the article. --2604:2000:E010:1100:582E:98E5:E8A:2179 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected because its sourcing was poor, not because of notability. The article needs to include secondary sources, such as newspaper reports.  Sounder Bruce  00:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It has many. For example

•"Destiny's Child". Daily Bruin. October 27, 1998.

•"Getting to Know: Louise Lieberman". USD Magazine +. June 14, 2017.

•Don Norcross (August 18, 2017). "New coach already puts her stamp on USD soccer". The San Diego Union-Tribune.

•Noah Hilton (October 5, 2017). "Lieberman brings lofty goals to USD". The USD Vista.


 * Plus I will add the above two. "Sourcing" exists for the notability criteria.
 * GNG need not be met in addition (though it is as well). A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. That's a basic notability rule - see the notability criteria as it relates to GNG, etc. Please take a second look.
 * Perhaps User:Lugnuts can explain this better than I have, if he has a moment.

--184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't really deal with football/soccer articles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Sounder. Are you going to have a chance to review what I pointed you to? Or should I seek to have someone review your decision. I think it's pretty clear, and that you are: 1) not looking at the RS refs, and 2) confusing GNG with the applicable rule here in any case. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9058:C08F:4C86:E593 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some info from the archive of the WUSA website. The article now looks pretty good to me. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Racing Louisville FC
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bureau of Land Management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Fort Saskatchewan's GA nomination
Hey there!

I am the user who nominated Fort Saskatchewan for GA status. You "claimed" it for review on July 7th and stated that the review would take a week or so, so I just wanted to follow up and see if you will complete the review soon. I understand that you're a busy person, and am in no way trying to rush you. I was just hoping to check in and see where you're at.

Thanks for your time :)

CplKlinger (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about the wait. I have had an unusually busy month and haven't been able to start the review. I should be able to add comments sometime soon.  Sounder Bruce  21:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely understand, life happens! Thank you for letting me know :) CplKlinger (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bellevue
, why did you undo my edit? To me, synthesis of sources really does not fit. I'm not trying to show any relationship, thereby expressing a point of view, between the two facts that I cite to a single source. I report them as two separate facts, not expressing any point of view about any relationship. So, to my way of thinking, that does not work. So, what was it? I'm puzzled, particularly considering that on your page it says to be kind to new editors.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm copying this exchange from my talk page. I would appreciate an answer.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read through WP:SYNTH, which concerns the synthesis of published material. While you did add a valid citation, the prose added includes analysis that is not appropriate. A good secondary source like the Bellevue Reporter or Puget Sound Business Journal would be better for discussing the number of projects and their impact, rather than adding up the individual entries on the city's project list.  Sounder Bruce  19:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reference, and I did read through it. But it does seem to me that WP:What SYNTH is not and in particular the section "SYNTH is not summary" is more relevant, in this situation. I'm not expounding a new thesis or expressing a point of view. Rather, I'm just summarizing. To me, your position is contrary to much of the philosophy of Wikipedia in that you are overly strictly using a guideline to prevent the improvement of an article. Why are you doing this? I will also just note that in wp:proveit there is this advice to editors: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."Truth Is King 24 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've given you time to respond, but you have not. So I'm going to revert your revert. This is not edit warring, because we discussed it, I made my point. There was no response. In the future, I hope that you will follow Wikipedia's clear policy, and "when reverting be specific about your reasons in the edit summary ... ." Simply giving a link which does not actually apply is not being specific.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * comment:, people sleep. Editors are usually in different time zones than yours. Since SounderBruce has not edited since your previous comment, it is premature to claim "no response". Schazjmd   (talk)  14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a fair comment, and thank you for sharing. In this instance, did respond to a comment of mine in the interim, so he was awake, logged on, etc. Truth Is King 24 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're correct, I misread the timestamps and SounderBruce did make several edits last night after your comment above. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedia is a volunteer-run organization, there is no obligation for me to interrupt my sleep and regular work to reply immediately to talk page inquiries. When I wrap up a big set of edits at the end of my night, I am prepared to wind down rather than start another round of editing. There has been no real discussion on the two disagreements here and no consensus has been reached, so changes should not be made. As for the Bellevue section: the source given (which changes from quarter-to-quarter while retaining the same URL, so it would need to be archived and dated appropriately) lists 3 projects with "more than 300,000 sqft of office space" in the under construction section. That is verifiable to this source, however the following sentence is too vague to be reliably sourced to this list. Again, a secondary source that spells out the same information would be leagues better for verifiability; examples in the Puget Sound Business Journal and Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce among them. I have gone ahead and added several DJC citations and fixed up the formatting of your citation, but please remember to be civil when discussing content on user talk pages.  Sounder Bruce  19:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for improving the link and the text. I feel that the article now better serves those wanting to know a little about Bellevue.

Hovander Homestead Park
Why did you undo my edit? wp:lead states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." The article's topic is Hovander Homestead Park - not the Hovander family. So I changed it so that it was a concise overview of the park. I'm very confused by your behavior. In both this case and in your undo of my Bellevue edits, you chose an aggressive response of undoing my edits with only a brief reference to a policy, which actually did not support your undo. But Wikipedia policy clearly encourages a friendlier and more helpful response, where some notice is given before an edit is undone. Truth Is King 24 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Undoing an edit is not an "aggressive response". The standard operating procedure on Wikipedia is WP:BRD: bold editing, a revert, and then discussion. For articles that are in the mainspace, it is important to retain some level of quality, and thus a revert is more liberally used.  Sounder Bruce  06:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , wp:brd states, "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." So, it would seem that reverting is not "standard operating procedure" but something that editors are encouraged to do "only when necessary." Moreover, it seems to me that you have not followed this policy, because you have not been specific about your reasons. And, the statement that "BRD does not encourage reverting" indicates to me that gentler methods are generally encouraged. I'm asking you, now, to be specific. I would really appreciate it, in the spirit of cooperation, if you would do so. That appears to be Wikipedia policy.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I will just say, a little further, that the wp:lead page includes 30 sections (counting the subsections), so referring to this lengthy page, without giving me any idea as to what guideline contained in all of those sections and subsections I might have run afoul of, was definitely not specific. I have to admit, that after working hard on that edit, and feeling that I had improved the article and provided a clear explanation in the edit summary of what I had done and why, that it was frustrating and even a little anger provoking that you reverted my edit with a mere cursory reference to that page, without any further explanation. Truth Is King 24 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the core principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith and maintain civility when interacting with other editors. A revert is not the end of the world, but merely the first step to correcting what others see as an error or misjudgement. This project is built on consensus between thousands of people, so there are bound to be conflicts and disagreements over everything. You shouldn't take it personally, as with most things on the Internet.


 * The statement above was just about my internal reaction to what you did. It in no way is a statement about your motivation, which I could not know. My hope would be that it could be useful information to you. It is one thing to know what the policy is. But the reason for the policy is the knowledge of how an unexplained edit might affect another editor. It is frustrating, because after working hard on an edit, if someone reverts it, it is only natural to want to understand why.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As for the edit, the problem was the deletion of half the lead without an adequate replacement, as WP:LEAD states that it should be reflective of the article's content, which spends time discussing the original landowners. Also, citations in the lead are not necessary for statements that are repeated from the body (with reliable sources there), and can often lead to ordering errors in the body due to certain citations being moved up. Please be mindful of this.  Sounder Bruce  19:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it is good to know what the issue was. I have re-edited it, with an eye to retaining that information. Although now that I'm done, and I reread your comments, I realize that I did put in a citation. But there were other citations already there. I just feel that the size of the park, which is far larger than just the homestead buildings area, the fact that it includes Tennant Lake, and the actual location (it is not in Ferndale, actually) are all important. Truth Is King 24 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Citylink Edits
Hey, you undid all of my corrections. What you have left posted is incorrect. The website is wrong, the times and dates of the routes are wrong, and in fact it is two agencies that run public transportation. I agree with the other user who wrote you are aggressive. Why was there no discussion before you undid all of my corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitylinkIdahoKC (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , per the Conflict of interest guidelines (also posted to your talk page), all editors with an external relationship with the article subject must disclose the relationship before editing. It is highly recommended to not edit the page directly, but suggest changes on the talk page (e.g. Talk:Citylink (Idaho)) with sources so that an experienced editor can review them when adding.
 * There are other issues, namely WP:NOTGUIDE, which discourages adding specific times and other guidebook-like information to articles. The entry is meant to discuss the history and general operations of the agency, rather than going into detail about each route.  Sounder Bruce  21:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are other issues, namely WP:NOTGUIDE, which discourages adding specific times and other guidebook-like information to articles. The entry is meant to discuss the history and general operations of the agency, rather than going into detail about each route.  Sounder Bruce  21:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did disclose that I worked for Citylink. I don't mind the times not being there, but you posted that is runs 16 hours per day 7 days per week.  That is incorrect.  There is a Citylink South and a Citylink North, combined they make Citylink. You even removed the picture of the Transit Center where all systems meet up.  I would have loved to have someone else make the changes but again, I am so new I can barely figure out how to write a message.  Plus, the needed changes are extensive.  So, where do we go from here because you have a lot of incorrect information posted. Do you care about being right?  I was hoping you would offer some guidance not just delete all the correct information.CitylinkIdahoKC (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please post the requested changes on the talk page (Talk:Citylink (Idaho)) with sources for each change. Wikipedia is only able to include information that is verifiable and neutral.  Sounder Bruce  21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the guidance. The picture I posted was awesome tho lol. (Sorry still learning)CitylinkIdahoKC (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. I will add the image back (though it should be placed after the infobox, for future reference). Images of transit facilities are always appreciated, especially if they're outside of large urban areas.  Sounder Bruce  21:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thank you and sorry, I can't even figure out how to put your name in the reply. I am looking at the page you referenced above and will try to figure out how to put the needed information in there.  Warmly,CitylinkIdahoKC (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Interstate 5 in Washington
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Interstate 5 in Washington 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 Mccunicano -- Mccunicano (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of "Draft:Charlotte Football Club" to create a redirect to Charlotte FC
Hello, I am wondering why the creation of Draft:Charlotte Football Club, intended to redirect to Charlotte FC, was declined. No page for Charlotte Football Club exists, and I provided a source from Charlotte FC's official website referencing the club's full name as Charlotte Football Club. Charlotte Football Club is displayed in the crest seen on Charlotte FC. TheNobleBug (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the redirect has been created. The WP:AfC process is not meant to be used for redirects.  Sounder Bruce  20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Interstate 5 in Washington
The article Interstate 5 in Washington you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mccunicano -- Mccunicano (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

GA review
Just a reminder that the 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off) page that you review still needs to be completed as I did what was required of me to make it a GA. HawkAussie (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Forthcoming template
Why don't you add the template after it will be created? I am referring to this revert you made. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dell Loy Hansen DYK
Hello! Your submission of Dell Loy Hansen 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. You just need to complete the QPQ and you're all good.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just noticed something about the article so I gave the dyk another "?". Hopefully it’s just a quick thing. Sorry about that.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for improving captions
I like what you did for the captions on the Bellevue article. For an article on Bellevue, WA, I guess it makes sense that we don't have to specify "WA" in a caption. One thing, is there some way, "inspect element" or something like that, where you can tell when a photograph was taken. I put "cerca" because I was sort of guessing, just based on which buildings were there, and also my memory of when the various buildings were built, so I was really not sure.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , check the Commons description page for the image, which usually includes the date the photograph was taken. In this case, it was created in 2009. Also, "cerca" is not the correct word; "circa" is but it is preferred to use the circa template.  Sounder Bruce  04:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kevin Wood (guitarist)
Hello SounderBruce. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kevin Wood (guitarist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: co-founded two notable bands, released music on notable label, worked with multiple notable musicians. Thank you. So Why  08:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove my sourcing, for my photograph of the construction site?
Now another editor complained that it was unsourced. The fact that a 42 story building is going there, would I think need to be sourced, and I don't see what is wrong with the major projects list, as a source. How can I properly source it, which I would like to do. Truth Is King 24 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Images
Please explain your deletions of images on the basis that they are not "necessary." That is not a satisfactory reason. We have many images on Wikipedia. None are "necessary." In fact, the articles themselves are not "necessary."

If you wish to delete a contribution from an editor, please provide an appropriate reason that accords with policy. And note that WP policy is that "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article."

Of try this -- start deleting images from articles on US presidents, as "not necessary," and see what reaction you get from others.

Indeed -- how would you feel if someone deleted one or more of your images, as "not necessary?" I would think that you of all people would recognize that that is not WP policy, and is not helpful nor collegial editing. --2604:2000:E010:1100:317D:1647:F589:7389 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, can you justify your position in terms of our policies on images? John from Idegon (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK review of Aoimori Park
Hey there, it's been several days since I made some changes to the article, Aoimori Park. Would you mind revisiting its DYK review? ⑉⑉ Mccunicano ☕️  03:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that. I didn't get a ping from the page and haven't had it in my watchlist for some reason.  Sounder Bruce  05:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

MLS Cup 1996 scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the MLS Cup 1996 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 20, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 20, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Interstate 5 in Washington
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dell Loy Hansen
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your revert of my edit on "1999 Seattle WTO protests"
"Anti-globalization movement" isn't capitalised, as shown in its article, Anti-globalization movement. I don't want to start an edit war, so we can discuss here on whether or not my edit should stay. Swiftestcat (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , my mistake but please include this in the edit summary. It was flagged as a suspicious edit on my watchlist.  Sounder Bruce  05:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!
-- Eddie891 Talk Work 12:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off)/GA1
SounderBruce, this review has been waiting for you to return to it for a while. If you don't think you'll be able to get back to it soon, I'll see if I can find another reviewer to finish it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to wrap it up this week, but I have been swamped with personal affairs over the last few weeks. I will drop the other GANs that I haven't started, though I'm not sure if it requires special directions beyond a CSD.  Sounder Bruce  06:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SounderBruce, thanks for the reply. I know you'll do your best to finish it when you can. It looks to me that in addition to this review, you have three others open:
 * Talk:Sengkang MRT/LRT station/GA1: unfortunately, there’s a comment by someone else on it, so you can’t request a deletion of the page, and besides, the two comments there are useful. In this case, I’d suggest posting that you won’t be able to do the review after all, and I can take care of updating the GA nominee template page to 2, which puts the nomination back into the pool of unreviewed noms with no loss in seniority.
 * Talk:Fort Saskatchewan/GA1: this one qualifies for a speedy deletion under G7. If you put that through, I’ll do the necessary clean-up on the article talk page once the deletion goes through.
 * Talk:Flag of Columbus, Ohio/GA1: you opened this review on May 15, started it on June 20, and last posted on August 21 to say you’d been busy. Did you want to continue with this one, or drop it? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've gone ahead and G7'd the second entry and can work a bit on the third. I'm not sure what to do with the first, but it's shorter than the rest and I could get around to it. Thanks for cleaning up the mess I've left behind.  Sounder Bruce  07:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SounderBruce, thanks. I've reset Talk:Fort Saskatchewan now that the review page has been deleted. Since you have the two in-progress reviews to complete (1994 FIFA and Flag of Columbus), and since the October GAN backlog drive starts in under 12 days, I was thinking that it would make sense to put the Sengkang hook back into the pool of noms needing a review: I'd do that by bumping the page number from 1 to 2. Once you've finished the two outstanding reviews, if you want you can take a look: if no one has started (or finished) a review of Sengkang despite the backlog drive, you can always revert my bumping of the page number and start the review at that time. Does that work for you? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SounderBruce, since it's been more than the usual seven days, I've gone ahead and updated the GA nominee template as I mentioned above, and put the Sengkang back in the pool of nominations awaiting review. A new review page will be created should a reviewer show up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * SounderBruce, it's been four weeks since I first posted, and you haven't returned to either Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off)/GA1 or Talk:Flag of Columbus, Ohio/GA1. Perhaps it might be best if we called for a second opinion/new reviewer. Would you be willing to have this done within a certain period of time, maybe in seven to ten days or by the end of October, if you haven't been able to continue the reviews by then? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather hand these off at this point. I have no free time left for writing, let alone reviewing.  Sounder Bruce  06:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've asked a potential reviewer to take over, and if they can't, I'll keep looking. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dominic Gates
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Family Stadium Edit
Louisville City FC are in the MLS yet you said it was vandalism when i put it on the Lynn Family Stadium page. I don't want to start a war, but it was not vandalism. SRYTtech (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They keep reverting this, so it's probably time for a block. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)