User talk:Choess

Please leave a message after the beep.

Catenary skids

Thanks for calling my attention to this. You're correct in your assumption that I'd be interested, but as I'm more of a track-and-structures person, I haven't noticed or studied this mechanism in any detail. Please share photos! Elizabeth Linden Rahway (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sheriffs of Devon - date style to use

Hi Choess, over on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_Sheriff_of_Devon#New_style_or_old_style_years_before_1752? I am seeking some advice on dating issues - in particular around the use of old style or new style dates before 1752. I would welcome your thoughts over there if you have time to comment.NHSavage (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metasequoia heerii has been accepted

Metasequoia heerii, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	:) Starzoner (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Choess: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Baldwin, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)

The article Baldwin, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After excluding the two redlinks and the township entry, which isn't known as "Baldwin, Pennsylvania", there's only one valid disambiguation page entry here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

From WT:PLANTS

I'm relatively new to the plants wikiproject. It's possible I don't know what I'm doing, or that I do but people won't give me credit for knowing what I'm doing. Time will tell I guess. I've written a bunch of ideas down but I won't dump them all at once ... I'm trying to think of whether there's a compromise that will preserve most of the 4-page list and not require reviewers to cover the same ground again ... I can't afford to piss them off. Thinking. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: I still feel a bit muddled trying to understand the list criteria here. OK, so listing all plant genera, or even all vascular plant genera, with etymologies, is an enormous job, and it makes sense to bite off a smaller piece of work. But the way that list has been pared down is to make a somewhat arbitrary choice of source. It feels a bit like the list was constructed first to make it "FL-able", and only secondarily to answer a natural question from a reader. If the scope of the list were limited to cultivated plant genera, do you think that would be manageable? It sounds like Stearn attempts to be comprehensive, so further additions would probably be manageable, and "What are all the genera of plants in cultivation?" seems like a more natural question to ask than "What are all the genera of plants listed in Stearn's?" (By contrast, "What are all the genera of plants named after people?", which you're also working on answering, seems like a natural and reasonable question.)

I'd be happy to act as a sounding board for further ideas. Extracting data from print sources and organizing it, as you're doing, is the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and we have far too few people doing that in comparison with other ancillary activities. I would hate to see you discouraged from doing so. Choess (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds very encouraging, and is largely in line with my thinking. It's late ... I'm going to beaver away at something gnomish and give you an answer tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Suppose you could have any one sublist of genera you want, updated annually. Would it be "all genera in cultivation"? Something else? And if you know, where would we pull the list from? - Dank (push to talk) 03:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'd like a list of fern genera, but that's my personal itch and I'd be the one maintaining it anyway. (Still waiting for Mineirella to hit IPNI, but I'm sure they're still recovering from the COVID furloughs.) That may not be the best one to suggest, in part because there are differences of opinion between POWO and much of the fern community. But "all genera in cultivation" sounds like a reasonable list, and maybe the current 4-part list could be transformed into that without losing too much of its current character.

Looking at pykew, it looks like a bot could poll POWO occasionally for names "added" since the last run, which presumably would generate a list of newly recognized genera, but I don't have the programming chops to implement that. I wonder if that would be a good addition to a Plants project page somewhere? Might encourage people to crank out stubs on genera as they're published/recognized. Choess (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a "cultivation" parameter at pykew ... do you know where i could get a list of genera that are in some sense in cultivation? - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My idea behind using pykew is that you'd be able to pull up new additions to the database–it would be a tool for keeping up with newly added genera of any sort. Is Stearn's meant to be comprehensive? That was why I suggested "in cultivation" as a criterion; it should track pretty closely with the existing lists, but it might accumulate some additional genera that were missed from things like the Fern Grower's Manual sitting next to me. Do you need an existing comprehensive source so that the list can pass FL without questions as to whether it is, in fact, complete? That might be troublesome. Choess (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, my answer to that question is that the plants project can choose whatever criteria they want and whatever source they want, and I'll work with that. But see User talk:PresN#Lists that change annually. What I'm looking for at the moment is to understand your idea of what "genera currently in cultivation" looks like, so I can compare it to the Stearn lists. Btw, I've decided: after the project has selected what new series of lists they want and that series has been promoted at FL, then you guys can do whatever you like with the Stearn list ... burn it to the ground, de-feature it, rename it, tweak it, or keep it as is, I don't care. (Added: I don't care because I think it's likely that if a new FL succeeds with heavy overlap with the Stearn list, then any confusion or conflict over the Stearn list is likely to be cleared up, and it probably won't matter what we do with it.) Also, I need to mention one constraint: some of what I'm doing with my current (probably four-part) list at FLC is done best if I do it from memory, so I have to at least finish writing those four lists before I can work on a new list. Won't take more than 3 weeks, I think, then I can work on something else, but they might not be promoted for 2 months (or never). - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I thought "genera currently in cultivation" was sort of self-explanatory--if I had a list in hand, I'd put it in the article! I guess I'd say to make it manageable, accepted genera should be added to the list only when they come from some sort of tertiary reference or catalog of cultivated taxa like Stearn's. That would avoid getting entries shoved in on the basis of anecdote or one-off reports of cultivation. Hopefully that wouldn't add very much to the current lists but I don't know. Choess (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can you suggest a next step here? - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for feedback in the current thread at WT:PLANTS#List of plant genus names. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My quick look at the APIs at Kew suggests the added and modified fields/properties are part of ipni API rather than powo API. I don't think this would help track changes to the POWO lists. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Could still work anyway. You would need human intermediation at some point (I don't view this as a completely automated process), but being able to pull what new genera were added to IPNI in the past, say, 6 months at least gives one a basis to start from. Choess (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Banksia and Kuntze

Hello Choess,

I noticed you have added material about Otto Kuntze's rejection of the name Banksia to five articles. There are 181 articles about Banksia species and 70 or so about their subspecies. I was wondering if you intended to add the same information to all 250-odd of those articles or if not, on what basis did you choose the five (so far)? Gderrin (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: I was originally doing a little FAR-inspired cleanup on Banksia aemula, and noticed that section was somewhat thinly sourced. I dug up the references and did some wordsmithing ("challenged" made it sound like a judicial duel to me) and wound up with what you see. I copied it to a few articles at the head of the alphabet and then paused, realizing I should get the wording just right before deploying it in bulk. Let me think a little about the wording and I'll drop a notice on the WikiProject Banksia page. I think there will be about 47 pages where this applies (including the page on the genus). Choess (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick response! My feeling is that adding information about the name of a genus to every species in that genus is not really appropriate, especially since in this case, about half of the species (95?) of Banksia were previously dryandras until 2007. Seems a bit like "padding" in an exam response - making an answer look impressive because it's long. Gderrin (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you do a GAN review?

Choess, Casliber suggested I ask you if you would be willing to do the GAN review for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. I tagged you in the talk page. I am readily available to interact during the review process, and look forward to input. --Eewilson (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for peer review help

Hi Choess. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times! Apologize to bother and posting a random request. I have just started to work on a stub (Fontainea Venosa)and had added some sections. I am trying my best to get the article to B class hopefully. Knowing your expertise, I would love if you can help me to review and left a comment on what I can do to improve my edits. I hope that this is okay, but no pressure if you are busy. That is completely fine and understandable :) Hope to hear from you soon. The article is Fontainea Venosa

Thank you so much :)Sparklingkull (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Choess a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Seventeenth anniversary on Wikipedia

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

TFA nom for Adiantum viridimontanum

I have nominated Adiantum viridimontanum to be today's featured article on an unspecified date. As the article's FAC nominator, you are invited to its TFA nomination page to comment on its suitability. Thanks and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sebastian Browne, 12th Marquess of Sligo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sebastian Browne, 12th Marquess of Sligo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Browne, 12th Marquess of Sligo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pilaz (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Donogh O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond

Dear Choess. Long not heard from you. I hope you are fine and still enjoying Wikipedia. I am looking at the article Donogh O'Brien, 4th Earl of Thomond I find that it was you who added, on 29 July 2010 [1], the mention "descended by acceleraton" to the 2nd row (the one for Baron Ibrickan) of the succession box. It is the only mention of this acceleration in the article. On what did you base it? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Adiantum viridimontanum scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Adiantum viridimontanum article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 13, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 13, 2022, 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 Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

October songs

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2011): "I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it completely and accurately discusses this rare fern. I am confident that I have addressed all relevant literature. The article was recently passed as a good article by Ucucha, who opined that it might well go forward to FAC. Most sources are peer-reviewed botanical literature, as well as an information sheet published by a reputable botanical organization. The photograph of A. viridimontanum was taken by me at one of the sites described by Zika & Dann (1985), so I'm fairly confident it has the correct species."! - I like to have the pictured DYK on the same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	For making great points in a difficult AfD! Curbon7 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Choess!

Happy New Year!

Choess,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagging of stubs

Hi Choess, I am not so much into the latin language and the scientific classification terms and I believe most aren't either. There is no explanation to the latin scientific terms and I believe a tag is needed. What kind of tag would you suggest? Lead to short ok for you?

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: While I do not think these stubs are very useful, I don't think they need to be tagged as anything other than stubs (which implies that they need to be expanded). I have seen many of them created by others and do not remember seeing them get tagged as "Technical", "Lead too short", etc., so I think most people are not very much bothered by them. When I look at Oxyrhopus erdisii, I do not necessarily know how to interpret the Latin name and all the information in the taxobox, but I know that is there because of the requirements of binominal nomenclature and Linnaean taxonomy. Reading on I learn that it is a snake and it comes from Peru. That is not very much, but the article is after all a stub.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that an article like methyl isoeugenol also needs tagging of this kind? I am trying to understand why you want to tag stubs about species especially. If I knew how you felt about other articles that are technical and not very informative to most readers, I might understand better. Choess (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, bothered is now a big word. But I see the stub can be expanded, I believe very few people recommend reading a wikipedia article after having read a stub like this. And the chance it gets expanded rises if tagged. Then a project that focuses on expansion (of lead, of body etc.) can consider it. For many fields Wikipedia has become the reference per se, the first to be consulted and the first recommended one if you look for it online which most people do now. Also, if you check the source, you'll see that there is a lot of (also interesting) information more to be added. For any backlog drive for expansion the stub would be an easy prey. At least National Geographic and Yale University are two wls that could be added to the article. The article could be better integrated within wikipedia. The same I have observed also in other species stubs.

And concerning your creation, I also believe some sort of tag would help. It says even less to me than the one on the snake.:) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: I'm sorry, that wasn't meant to be a trap! I had that as an example of a relatively technical article, and I forgot that I wrote it, probably to fill a redlink years ago. My overall point was that articles on very narrow, specialized subjects are often rather technical, because only people with some background will want to look up that specific subject. Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader suggests this (in my opinion): "An article entitled 'Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music' is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms. On the other hand, an article entitled 'Baroque music' is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information." To give other examples, when I look at Esculenta's articles (which I don't believe were created by AI, although I haven't dug extremely deeply to check), I think they tell you more or less all there is to know about that species of lichen—and yet I would have to get out my big lichen book and look up a certain amount of vocabulary to get a good picture in my mind of what the article is talking about. Math articles are similar (to me): some of them are not really comprehensible to me, but there is not much that can be done for the lay reader without repeating a textbook's worth of background in each article. For stubs like the snake and the chemical, they might be more accessible if someone expanded them and wrote a good lead, but by definition stubs are waiting to be expanded just like that. I don't think adding another tag would make the stubs get expanded faster; everyone knows that there are many, many stubs that need to get expanded, but doing that is a lot of work and few people are capable of doing it for any one subject area.

To give another example from my writing, I do like to produce full articles rather than stubs when I write about species. Argyrochosma jonesii is a recent one. It probably cannot be expanded much further at all. For someone who is not obsessed about ferns, much of the article is probably not very understandable: hopefully the lead is useful, and for this one I could get photos, which (even to me) are much more explanatory. But for someone familiar with ferns, I think the article is very useful, because they can read it carefully and distinguish it from similar species.

In general, I think all of us will find stubs in unfamiliar subject areas more confusing and uninformative than stubs in familiar subject areas, but I'm not sure additional tagging helps with the underlying problem (we need many editors who understand subjects well enough to write informative articles). Choess (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to note I saw all the recent botany stub sorting you did and appreciate that. Steven Walling • talk 04:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your assistance with my Samuel Richards article. I appreciate it greatly and I'm glad he is finally getting the recognition he deserves! Decifix (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Decifix: I'm sorry your draft got caught in chancery so long, and I'm glad I spotted it. The Articles for Creation process can be very finicky about these things. Sometimes it's easier to submit a partially finished article with full references (but enough content to show clearly that the subject is notable) and continue to add to it once it goes from draft to article.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey is pretty quiet at present, but Hurricanehink and Tinton5 have both expressed an interest in South Jersey topics in the past. I have a set of Beck's books, and a number of miscellaneous resources on the mid-Atlantic iron industry, and would be happy to help with future articles. Choess (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I plan to hopefully expand to other members of the Richards Family. Jesse Richards for Batsto and William Richards for Batsto as well. I'd love to collaborate if you're interested! Decifix (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing. Looking at "Iron in the Pines", I think there's sufficient material for a freestanding article on both of them. The other members of the family might be more difficult to bring to freestanding articles, but an article on the Richards family as a whole could probably be supported from Pierce's 1964 book and other miscellaneous references. Choess (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a few different sources that I would use for an article on Jesse Richards. "Iron in the Pines," "Heart of the Pines," plus "Family Empire in Jersey Iron."

These are really the main sources I use, but I'm also the historian for Atsion so I have a lot of personal knowledge about the family that I incorporate. Decifix (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesse Richards

Hey! I plan to begin an article on Jesse Richards, the ironmaster at Batsto Iron Works. Did you want to collaborate on that? Decifix (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Decifix: Yes, I'd be happy to help. What would you like me to do? Also, in response to your comment in the previous thread, we have to be careful here about what Wikipedia calls "Original research". At least in theory, anything that gets added to the encyclopedia should be traceable to a reliable, published source. (There is some leeway in citing primary sources, but that should probably be used with discretion.) Of course, that background knowledge can inform what comes out of published sources (e.g., if we know a particular statement by Pierce is incorrect, we're not compelled to repeat it). That said, if you were to publish novel findings in a book or pamphlet, your official position would make it likely that we could cite that as a suitable source. (Yes, this is all very baffling when you're trying to focus on disseminating correct information, but Wikipedia has its own peculiar customs.) Choess (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Astroloma

A tag has been placed on Category:Astroloma indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)