User talk:MB/Archive 3

A year ago ...
historic personalities; and places
	... you were recipient; no. 1516 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

DYK for Delaware Railroad

On 28 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Delaware Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Delaware Railroad was sued in 1863 because it didn't have enough freight cars to transport a bumper crop of peaches? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Delaware Railroad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Delaware Railroad), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Park Village

The article Winter Park Village has been expanded and improved with more sources, plus a few valid assertations of notability (first mall in the Orlando area, subject of several articles on urban renewal). Please revisit your AFD vote if so inclined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Tenney Reversion

Could you please help me out for a second? Why did you revert the edit by user:senty78 about NRA contributions? It was properly sourced, factual claim and IMHO does not rise to the claim you made in the change log of "Undue politically motivated comment."

On the Internet, it is difficult to convey emotion and tone, so I want to assure you that I mean no sarcasm with this comment. Please understand that. I am simply trying to understand how the removal of a statement of fact can be justified here.

Thanks!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KNHaw, WP is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all facts known. There are 535 members of Congress, and they all receive donations from many people and organizations. Clearly we do list all of them, there are websites dedicated to tracking this information. For a specific donation to be included in an article about a politician, I would think there would have to be some significance to it that would be discussed in the article. The edit in question said only "Tenney has received $5,950 in campaign donations from the National Rifle Association." It's not tied to a position, a controversy, any issue about Tenney covered in RS. Without some encyclopedic significance, it's just trivia. Has she received unusually large donations from the NRA? Is there any coverage of anything to make this important? The timing of this edit with the recent mass murder event made me see it as a political smear since the anti-gun people have been heavily vilifying the NRA this week. I see the same editor made the same change (listing NRA donations) to several other articles. Regardless of the motivation of why it was added (of which I can only speculate), I maintain it is trivia that should be removed. MB 00:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for answering my question. I appreciate it.

You make a good point. If there was an overall section mentioning a progun position or if it was somehow in a dedicated controversy section, then the inclusion of donation numbers makes sense. Otherwise, you're right about it just being trivia.

I've restored your edit so you don't have to trouble yourself.

Happy editing!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 20:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook

Hello! Sorry if I stepped on your toes with the hook; by calling the feature "disputed", I meant more that is has long been disputed (which is one of the things that make the feature interesting to read about). As for calling it a cay, the article "Cay" begins, "A cay ... is a small, low-elevation, sandy island." It's a more specific term that communicates the sort of island we're talking about—and, a cay is, indeed, an island (Qatar's position was that the feature was not a cay but a shoal). Anyway, sorry if you're not happy with the result, and thank you for creating the article!-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Qit'at Jaradah

On 14 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qit'at Jaradah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Qit'at Jaradah, an island in the Persian Gulf, rises only 0.4 metres (1 ft 4 in) above water at high tide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qit'at Jaradah. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Qit'at Jaradah), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article photos?

You seem to be systematically adding photos to articles that need them in reverse alphabetical order. That's a wonderful thing. What method are you using to find articles that have free photos that can be added to them - and is there any way someone else can help? --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I have been using Category:No local image but image on Wikidata. Just look at one of these articles, then open the "Wikidata item" link in the toolbar and see if there is an appropriate photo in commons. I find usable photos about half the time. Sometimes an article will already have a good photo but it is not in the infobox, so I move it to the infobox - which will remove it from this category. Sometimes an article will have a photo in the infobox, and a second infobox without a photo (which puts it in this category). It that case, I add "nocat_wdimage = yes" to the second infobox and the article will be removed from this category. Many of these seem to be football players which I skip over as I am not a fan - there are plenty left for you to work on. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm going to leave a message on your talk page because someont told me my pings may not be working. Please let me know if you received a ping from this. MB 01:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did receive the ping, as well as one from my talk page. I did not know about that category, it is great! --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steptoe & Johnson

Hello MB,

I want to inform you that I am going to remove your notability tag from Steptoe & Johnson, since my Google search shows that this has been a prestigious and influential law firm for over 100 years, and there are many reliable sources that can be used to improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I have made only one edit to that article today. The tag has been there about a year: [1]. MB 04:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought that your edit today added it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park

On 4 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the memorial to the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots is at the exact location where they died? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isaac T. Stoddard

On 19 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isaac T. Stoddard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that acting Arizona territorial governor Isaac T. Stoddard (pictured) ordered the entire Arizona Territorial Militia sent to control striking miners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac T. Stoddard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Isaac T. Stoddard), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello MB. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Buck

You may, or may not, want to expand Ed Buck.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gideon Brooke

On 7 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gideon Brooke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gideon Brooke's grave was unmarked for 136 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gideon Brooke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gideon Brooke), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Border Personnel Meeting point

On 23 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Border Personnel Meeting point, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 2015, the Indian army motorcycle acrobatic team performed for the Chinese army at Daulat Beg Oldi, one of five Border Personnel Meeting points? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Border Personnel Meeting point. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Border Personnel Meeting point), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello MB, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rumford Falls Power Company Building, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaux Arts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern New York Railroad

Thank you for cleaning the page, there is also a spur from the index station to Cooperstown. I don't know how to add it on the station list or how to connect the dots. Do you happen to know how to do it? Thanks Bacardi379 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bacardi379, no I'm not too familiar with that template. I would suggest looking at another railroad that has a spur and copy what was done there. MB 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palmer Park (Chicago), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaux Arts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fugitive dust

On 11 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fugitive dust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fugitive dust escapes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fugitive dust. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fugitive dust), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parlin Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anderson House (Danburg, Georgia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanesque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHL maps

Thanks for your help with the maps in the QMJHL and the OHL. Can you think of an appropriate map for the Canadian Hockey League as a whole? I'm suggesting just three colours though, one for each league. Flibirigit (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flibirigit, There is the standard Canada map, but that shows too much of northern Canada and doesn't, include outlines of the US states which are helpful, especially for Portland. So a custom OSM map is probably better. I did some experimentation in my sandbox. You can take the OSM map and start adding the teams like I did in the other articles. Ignore he "numbered blue dots" I tried before I realized there is a limit those of 20. You will have to just use colored Pogs. Let me know if you need any help. MB 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I wouldn't know where to find instructions on OSM maps. I had not heard of them until you added it to the QMJHL.Flibirigit (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the info is right where is should be: Template:OSM_Location_map. MB 01:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Prow house

Hello! Your submission of Prow house 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) 16:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MB, it's been over two weeks since this was posted, and you haven't yet replied on the nomination template. We need to hear something from you there before the weekend is over (or within 24 hours of your next edit) if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, done. MB 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OSM Location map

I am presently working on revising and updating the Kolkata Corporation ward pages. I noticed the OSM Location maps you had placed on two pages. The maps seem to be helpful. Thanks for introducing them in KMC ward pages. I have already tried it out in Ward No. 1, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ward No. 80, Kolkata Municipal Corporation pages. I will place it in other pages in due course. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map caption style

Bellezzasolo, Frietjes, Do either of you have any comments on linking US, when there is a map of city/state/county? I have been adding the caption "Location in city##Location in state##Location in United States. Many of these have been changed to "Location in the United States" eg. Natrona County High School. On a place in the US, I agree linking US in the article would be overlinking. But I like it in the map caption for consistency. MB 15:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one could argue that linking Wyoming is over linking, since it's already linked in the infobox. but, I think the linking in the infobox is different from linking in prose. I don't mind seeing lots of links in the infobox, but I also don't like to see overlinking in prose. my only opinion is that there should be consistency between articles. however, there are probably people out there with much strong opinions on the matter. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had an issue with a multitude of links in an infobox. Overlinking, possibly, but I prefer risking overlinking to underlinking. That's just me, though. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prow house followup

Prow house "aProwHouse3" in back, but closer one is peaked but with flat front i figure this is not a prow house?

A commercial building with sort of a prow, but not dramatic so probably not worth using

Oh, hey, your posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bond House (where i guess we disagree) reminds me: per your request at wt:NRHP, now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 66#Prow house photo request, I got some pics for the Prow house article, from a recent trip. I was ready to go out of my way a bit to get to a specific one in Durango, Colorado which shows up very prominently in Google searches on the term, but I wasn't able to get there. However I got a different one in that area (not quite as dramatic) and a couple more elsewhere. I should get some uploaded to commons soon. They are less common than I expected, out of the class of relatively modern wood/log mountain vacation houses...there are also Swiss chalet style ones and ones with peaks but flat fronts and different more rectangular modern styles, etc. I hope there's a prow house category on Commons to add them to. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, great. The article is in process for DYK right now. Will you be adding a photo to the article yourself after they are on commons? MB 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just finished uploading pics to Commons' new category

Media related to Prow houses at Wikimedia Commons. There's the pic here, and multiple other images of it from two dates, as "AProwHouse1" with various extensions, and "AProwHouse2", and "AProwHouse3", and a prow-fronted commercial building for a business named TaoSatva. Hmm, the latter maybe should not be in category "prow houses", it should be moved to a prow buildings category maybe. Out of the 19 pics uploaded and now in the category, I hope you may find one or two that are helpful for you to place into the article. Let me know if you'd like any more info about any of them. I could figure out their locations' street names if not house number addresses too and I could figure out latitude and longitude coordinates for any of them, if you think that would be helpful or important. I don't feel a huge need to provide exact location info as the three houses are private homes and I am not sure of the etiquette. They're not publicly listed already like places on the National Register are. Anyhow, I hope this helps. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i see at the Prow house article you or someone else already added one pic. I see also you're asserting that "The James House house" has "a flat-front prow"; i dunno if I really buy that it should be called a prow house. Are there really sources describing it or any other houses as flat-front prow? It could simply be termed a gable-front house, as opposed to a side-gabled one, say. I am just wondering, am not going to take issue in any way, and I am not researching, am not informed about usage of the term. Actually i see now that the DYK source about Ozark/Arkansas houses is very clear that flat-front gable-front houses, at least ones with a T-shape in Arkansas, are indeed called "prow houses". Over and out. --Doncram (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) --21:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark vernacular prow houses are -all- flat-faced, damnnear; this article is equivocating unrelated design types, and is not ready to be showcased as a DYK. Anmccaff (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if flat-faced ones are termed as prow houses as anmccaff states, then there's not a general problem. Sure there is some variety in what is called prow house then, like there is variety in what is called a Greek Revival house or any other style. It is obvious to me that peaked-front houses which protrude forward, as in contemporary houses found by google searching on "prow house" mostly show, are even more prow-like. I think the article needs to, and probably does, adequately cover the difference of flat-front vs. what I would call protruding-front prow houses. But the world is messy out there and an article covering the usage is good to have and good to put forward in DYK, too. And i see the article is clear enough about contemporary ones having "chamfered" fronts, too. It all looks good to me. --Doncram (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC) --21:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Anmccaff, Yes, the style that originated in Arkansas most often had a flat front. What made it prow shaped was the three-sided projection on the street side. The term has morphed over time and I tried to make the article cover everything related to "prow" styling in architecture including prow bay windows, prow roofs, etc. Saying that the Arkansas vernacular style and the modern prow style are "unrelated" is totally off base - it's a normal evolution of terminology. There really isn't a lot of coverage of the subject, so I don't see the possibility of splitting the article. If anything, the title could be changed to Prow architecture, but since it mostly covers the prow house (all types) it is probably fine as is. MB 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The "prow" in th Ozark house is seen in elevation, not plan. The narrow steep gabled center projection looks like an up-ended river barge in outline. The morphodite brick version used as an illustration is a terrible choice, showing almost none of the general characteristics.

Seriously, this article isn't fit for mainspace, much less the front page. Anmccaff (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff, Not according to this source: [2]. A "t-shape" plan is a prow house. Some have a flat gable roof with the gable end facing forward. Others with steep roofs facing certainly have more resemblance to the prow of a ship - but according to the source all are prow houses. MB 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two new probably-better pics of modern prow houses, reasonably close up, both from near Red River, New Mexico. Please feel free to replace the one by me in the article now with one of these! --Doncram (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I like the one in article better because it is more of a front-view. It would have been better with better lighting (it looks like a very cloudy day), but the two New Mexico photos have their problems too. I did crop your photo today to "zoom in" on the house itself. MB 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of CISBOT

Hello! Your submission of CISBOT 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! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Prow house

On 2 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prow house, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a prow house is named after a ship's prow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prow house. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prow house), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it in the DYK section on main page right now. :) --Doncram (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

railway chronologies

If you're going to be going through and changing the tenses, maybe change the date ranges to use all four numbers of the year while you're at it. And if you get any more push-back, remember that if we did chronologies differently than everything else regarding past events, OTD would most certainly be written in the present tense. Primergrey (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primergrey, I've finished doing the 1880s. It is quite tedious, so I don't know at what rate I will continue. But I intend work in it bit by bit. Feel free to proof-read the 1880s for things I may have missed. No push-back so far, but that probably won't last. As far as the date ranges, I'm not sure what you mean (in the article titles? or are there two-digit years elsewhere?) MB 04:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have a go at some. I did mean the the dates in the titles. Primergrey (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primergrey, I agree the titles should be changed. There are only 10 articles, so not a lot of work. The IP that reverted some of my tense changes was active today in the 1930s. They added many new incidents, and edited some existing once to present tense. I edited the entire 1930s section today to past tense. If they revert, I will try to direct them to the discussion on this. MB 02:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let them know and be nice about it and if there's still an issue we can take it up at the MOS tp. Primergrey (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timur Novikov

Hello MB, I understand you cropped the picture in Timur Novikov to focus on the person. But, there was a reason that the picture was taken, and layed-out in this way. Timur was already blind at the time, as his eyes might show. Then again his work centered more and more on religious motives, namely icons - which are characterized by a larger area with one color and only a small figure in the center. .. You get the point. So I propose to go back to the un-cropped version for this article. BR --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd.Brincken, Per MOS:PERTINENCE, "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone." If the subject was blind, WP should not try to obscure that fact. If the uncropped photo serves another purpose to illustrate his work, then it can be added in the body of the article with some text to explain the relevance. MB 15:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should ist not must. If you care so much for this rule, find a picture that was shot as a portrait for this kind of application. My picture does not fulfill this purpose.

Your citation was incomplete also, here is the whole sentence: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." There is no rule, or advice, to crop an existing image to just show the head. This is BTW also a misunderstaning of portrait photography. --Bernd.Brincken (talk)

Bernd.Brincken, the definition of portrait is a photo "in which the face and its expression is predominant" or a "photograph, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders." I only included the relevant part of the quote to emphasize that a biography should have a portrait, I didn't think the definition of portrait would be an issue. Also note that "your picture" was released under a CCA license so it is no longer under your control, just like any edits anyone make to WP. 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing with you, so I'm not claiming legal 'control'. You are the one who is eagerly and incompletely citing rules. Please consider the idea of the photographer and do not misuse his work. And what is your mission here anyway? What arouse your interest in this subject in the first place? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this discussion to Talk:Timur Novikov. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pair house architecture

discussion moved to User_talk:MB/draft1

Article was developed, is now in mainspace at Pair-house. MB, thanks so much for taking this on! I think you really did a great job building a high-level perspective about the topic, finding outside sources, and exercising editorial discretion to draw from the raw material of the NRHP detail information available. I woulda been too bogged down in details, myself, if I could have had the patience/energy to try. I'd be happy to be included in the DYK credit, per your offer. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other architectural topics covered in MPS / TR documents

You noted at Talk page for the draft Pair-house article that the MPS document about it covers a state-wide area, while you were mostly familiar with MPS documents covering one county. There are lots of others, could be mined for other architectural topics. FYI, there is an extensive system of Multiple Property Submission, a.k.a. Thematic Resources, documents, which was once all listed out at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/MPS cover sheets (shortcut wp:MPS). The pair-house one is listed there. The documents should all/mostly be available at National Park Service. (By the way, editors Nyttend and Lvklock and I took backup copies of them some years ago, because it seemed some were disappearing. Though I don't have convenient access to mine any more, if i do still have them.) The MPS documents focused on "all the historic sites in County X" aren't that helpful; we don't need an article focusing on that topic, the NRHP list-article for the county is effectively that. But there are many state-wide ones focusing on an architectural topic which do lend themselves to a topic for wikipedia. For some, the artificial cutoff at a state level is not helpful; e.g. there are several states having separate MPS documents about round barns which IMO should be covered in a nation-wide topic article (List of round barns). There is "German-Russian Wrought Iron Sites in Central North Dakota", which I used in creating articles about the separate individual NRHP listings, without creating a topic article (and there was a nasty AFD about them all). When I looked, there didn't seem to be sources to cover German-Russian wrought iron works more broadly than in North Dakota, and the North Dakota info was thin, itself, so there just wasn't sufficient definition for a topic article. YMMV. Hopefully you might peruse the MPS documents and find some more like the pair-house topic that do seem to have a good scope now. --Doncram (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I'm still learning about the NRHP nomenclature. I believe we want an article on most every NRHP "listing", and most of these included in the county lists. For the listings that cover a multi-county or multi-state thing - should there be a National Register of Historic Places, statewide or nationwide. I realize many other NRHP articles would be orphans without the lists and these type of articles would be more easily linked from other articles - but wouldn't a central list still be nice. (BTY, I was talking about WP county lists, not NPS county lists) MB 18:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MPS/TR documents are not listings, per se, in my view. They are studies done which consider and evaluate a bunch of properties at once, leading to some of the properties being individually listed. Note the pair-house one considers 16 examples, which led to a dozen or so actually becoming listed on the NHRP. Often the MPS establishes the criteria by which future nominations of similar type will be evaluated. The NPS does treat them as sort of official, in that they assign a reference number to the study, and they give a formal name for it (and like for individual nominations, there can be handwriting leading to the title being changed when they "officially" enter the document into their systems. But they are fundamentally just studies, like they are an academic study or a book, and for a topic like pair-houses the MPS covers some but not all of the examples. In the past, me and some others first thought that each MPS would naturally be a topic to cover, like to have a list-article for, and that they themselves should be listed in some mainspace list. And I sort of think it would be good to mention/link to the state-wide MPS studies in the introduction to each state's NRHP list. And to mention/link each county-specific one in the corresponding Wikipedia NRHP county-list article. But I came around to figuring they're each just one study, and like usually we don't create a wikipedia article about any local history book. If an article was about a study, it would have to describe the authors, the process of writing it, etc., which is different than the topic of the study, e.g. pair-houses in general. I regard an MPS document as just one source. Sometimes corresponding to an article topic, sometimes not. Hope this helps. Feel free to mention or move this discussion to wt:NRHP to get more views. --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cases where a thematic collection of sites got covered in a Wikipedia article, e.g. Camden Expedition Sites National Historic Landmark where the listing as a National Historic Landmark elevated the separately NRHP-listed places it covers. And some topics like standpipes or some similar technical type of building in Minnesota (i forget what exactly), corresponding to an MPS document, which exists as a single list-article, without there being separate articles about the NRHP-listed places. There are also MPS documents which consider a whole bunch of specific sites, e.g. bridges in one state, and then consciously pick and choose and say some are not good enough to be NRHP-listed. To say that the MPS document is "listed" in a sense, is using the term differently than how we've been saying properties are listed on the National Register. Including for contributing buildings in historic districts, which are deemed listed. Listing here means something legal about the property, sometimes meaning a zoning impact due to local laws and sometimes meaning eligibility for tax credits for historically-compatible rehabilitation. I would say the MPS document is officially "recorded" perhaps. This is like a property being deemed eligible for NRHP listing by its nomination being accepted (and garnering a record of decision reference number), yet it not being listed due to owner objection. Or like "additional documentation" being added for a given property or historic district, which happens sometimes, though usually under the same reference number as the original listing. All that said, I think your treatment using an infobox in the pair-house article does seem to work out okay, though it is unconventional. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I just looked at the wp:MPS for the first time. I saw Antebellum Homes in Eutaw Thematic Resource which has an article that seems rather pointless - it's just a list of other properties. I assume there is info in the MPS that is broad and applies to all the properties in the group which could go into the article ala pair-house. If there is such information, it wouldn't make sense to repeat in each of the two-dozen articles in this group. As with everything, what makes sense should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I was never suggesting that each of these MPS should be an article, although some, like pair-house, probably could be.

I was really wondering if these MPSs should be listed somewhere and now I know they are here. But why are they "hidden" in project space. It seems to me that WP:MPS could be wikified and moved to a list in article space. They seem to meet the list criteria and would be useful in searching WP for terms that may be in their title (e.g. pair-house). Has this ever been considered? MB 01:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was ever really considered, and see some merit to it, though I am not completely sure. It would be like a split-out from Multiple property submission (currently a section in main NRHP article). Or like listing all the books by a given publisher, though I am not sure if that is usually allowed or not. The list-table would naturally link to any Wikipedia article(s) covering the MPS topics. Also a separate article on Multiple property submissions should include a bit more in its intro, including covering the fact that the NPS/whoever decided that systematic TR / MPS type studies should be done in part to improve quality/consistency of NRHP listings, in response to very sketchy/random/inconsistent coverage that was happening. And to address unconscious bias / effective discrimination that was going on, i.e. otherwise covering all the White Rich people topics and never covering representative commoner sites. E.g. there was a themed effort to cover African-American historic sites at the time of the U.S. bicentennial, which was pretty important IMHO. (Though that research effort was itself biased and made some errors, e.g. striving to hard to find historically relevant sites, they literally National Historic Landmarked a NYC building based on erroneous/skimpy info about where a historic person lived, completely getting the wrong building. This was pointed out in Wikipedia, helping to push the NHL to be cancelled, later. It was hard, the modest or poor homes associated with some personages simply don't survive like Mellon mansions do.) Addressing bias in history, that the rich White mansions get covered, like the winners get to write the history of most wars, etc. The NPS was criticized for its biases, beforehand. This deliberate shift in approach to creating listings is discussed in some source(s) linked from the main NRHP article and perhaps in source which I recall I linked from Talk:List of NHLs in NY (about history of NHLs). I mean there is something significant to explain about MPS / TR approach to selecting historic sites for recognition, which has broader relevance to other historic registry systems. And a list of the MPS studies done is then more historically relevant / important / different than merely being a list of publications by one publishing house. You can be the one to convey that! --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ties to recent controversy about Confederate monuments, in real life and in Wikipedia (around List of Confederate monuments and memorials which i happened to have started a long time ago. The decision to commemorate Confederates by creating monuments is/was partly political and an assertion of importance/supremacy. In the recent discussions, no one has attacked the NPS for choosing to further this by listing some/many of them. In any one case you can reasonably argue a given monument is legitimately historically important. The problem no one in Wikipedia has pointed out is that there was/is bias in the NPS listings about this. The NPS has made some biggish efforts to counter the biases, i had the impression, anyhow.

I agree that the article on antebellum homes in one area is not helpful; i think it and some others created around that time would not survive scrutiny in an AFD. Without reviewing it specifically, my impression is that there would NOT be anything that need be repeated in each individual article. Many MPS documents turn out to be pretty rambling collections of disparate items. There's nothing special about antebellum homes in that one area which could not better be covered in more general article(s) about Plantation houses or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello MB, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Gothic arch barn

Hello! Your submission of Gothic arch barn 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! SarahSV ^(talk) 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic arch barn

If you'd like, please feel free to develop Gothic arch barn. There are lots and lots of architecture topics that are needed. This topic is bigger than the Pair house topic. I have seen a pretty large number of Gothic arch barns in NRHP listings, I think, though they have not been named and categorized that way. Seems to have developed in the 20s and 30s. There are modern suppliers of the gothic arches. For this one, I just created a stub article without really thinking about it. --Doncram (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I want to finish pair-house first. But I'll keep this in mind for sometime after that. MB 04:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, glad you will consider it. I won't add more to the article, in part not to make it harder to achieve a 5X dyk-worthy expansion. But I am adding a few more to new category Category:Gothic arch barns. Interestingly Tonsfeldt Round Barn is a round barn with Gothic arches. Maybe there are some others in List of round barns, not all of which have pictures so it is a bit hard to tell. If i have more notes about this topic, i'll put them at Talk:Gothic arch barn. --Doncram (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, take a look at User:MB/draft6 - it about 14x the size of your stub - plenty for DYK. Will wait for any comments you have before I make it live. Notice "Shawver Truss" and "Wells Truss" - both used in a few NRHP articles. I think I will make them redirects to this article - not enough info for their own articles. Also found more "NRHP eligible" gothic arch barns. MB 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good. I commented at Talk:Gothic arch barn. Don't worry, of course, about any of my remarks being more hopeful than practical to address. Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It really looks good. Thank you for developing this, it is really great work. And I like the DYK hook about Sears Roebuck selling them, a concept which I see i had put into a pic caption in the article as interesting, but didn't see then as a hook.

I have set up List of Gothic-arch barns as a redirect to the "Notable examples" section in the article. Currently I don't think any separate list-article is justified, doesn't need to be split out. There aren't as many NRHP-listed ones turning up as I anticipated, by the way. But is there any reason not to explicitly list all the examples from Category:Gothic arch barns, there? It would take a little presentation spin, e.g. perhaps to show Dairy barn at Kneipp Springs rather than Kneipp Springs Historic District. Or maybe it is better not to list them. They are all accessible via the category navigation process. --Doncram (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, thanks for the praise. I think the category is fine. If they were all listed here, I don't know who would maintain it as more are found. I listed a few as "examples" - mostly the one NRHP ones (not just NRHP eligible) that had photos. MB 22:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]