|Peer reviews having minimal or no feedback at all:|
|Military history WikiProject|
|Articles for review|
|See the full list of open tasks|
- 1 NRHPHELP Tools
- 2 Notable subjects
- 3 Pantiago Windmill
- 4 Have your say!
- 5 Clay Faulkner House
- 6 List of fire stations of historical significance in the United States
- 7 Michigan fire station articles
- 8 Alamogordo Woman's Club
- 9 Thanks for your welcome!
- 10 Nice job on NRHP too
- 11 Reassessments for NRHP articles
- 12 Cleaning up
Thanks for your comments and especially your mention of the Elkman NRHP infobox generator (I learned something new). My work, meager as it is, will benefit greatly from your suggestions.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good, glad my comment to your Talk page and my recent addition of some tips about working with multiple windows to the wp:NRHPHELP page have seemed helpful. I am really glad you've been contributing photos and developing articles on NRHPs in Idaho! --Doncram (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there a list of redlinked notable buildings and architect article subjects somewhere? I don't see much point in adding a bunch more drafts but if there is a list somewhere I'd be happy to add to it with a brief explanation of significance. Thanks FloridaArmy (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:FloridaArmy, I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. I mostly spend my Wikipedia time developing articles on NRHP-listed places, which are all indexed from List of RHPs (a shortcut to nation-wide list) which links to List of RHPs in KY etc. (state-level lists) which go to county or lower levels. There are editors who keep these lists updated. Per wp:NRHPPROGRESS (a Wikiproject tracking list, which also indexes them all), there are 92,000 or so NRHPs, of which 66,000 have articles, the rest are redlinks in this system. I/we generally presume that NRHP-listed means notable, because we know the standards of documentation and review for NRHP listing are higher than Wikipedia's standards for an article.
- I see you recently worked on an article, which "what links here" shows is indexed on List of historic landmarks in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That is some other list, not part of NRHP list-system. I don't know if those should automatically be assumed notable. I have also myself developed a bunch of non-NRHP list-articles, or ones that have both NRHP and non-NRHP places, e.g. List of Presbyterian churches, where the notability of non-NRHP ones hopefully is established by references included into the list-article.
- It can be a good contribution to add an item, with your sources, to a list-article, instead of, or in addition to, creating an article about the individual item. (Working with lists is good, IMO, should almost be required, i.e. we shouldn't be creating isolated/orphan-type articles out of context without working from a list, IMO.) Is that what you mean? You probably don't know about any NRHPs which are not yet included in the NRHP list-article system, because it is really pretty comprehensive and well-maintained (tho not perfect), but you probably can add to lots of others lists.
- Does this respond to what you mean? --Doncram (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, good. By the way there are some editors in Wisconsin who choose to develop short descriptions with cites in the Wisconsin NRHP county list-articles without starting the articles, i.e. leaving them as redlinks. I like that, their developing the list-articles and providing some coverage about all items, rather than the more common practice of editors starting the articles but not putting any description back in the list-article. My own practice is somewhere inbetween; i develop items within list-articles sometimes. --Doncram (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I've been adding to the monuments on commons and found that many NRHP sites are not listed. The East Hampton village green, which includes James lane, has the Mulford Homestead museum and the home sweet home museum, Ref 74001309. Its been a slog sorting out the windmills so I went there and tried to photograph as many as I could. Some are behind fences with dogs. Anyhoo, the Pantigo was for 72 years at Pantigo rd (montauk Hwy) and Egypt lane, before it was moved in 1917 to the backyard of the Homesweethome museum, a landmarked site on the NRHP. Googlemaps has it at the bottom of windmill lane, but thats the Hayground.Watch the articles, the lists need updating, the Huntting, pantigo, Mulford farm windmills are all the same smock mill, just the dates of the moves indicates who owned it....CaptJayRuffins (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is about new article Pantigo windmill (Easthampton, New York), which appears to be a contributing structure, probably, in East Hampton Village District. I posted at User talk:CaptJayRuffins#Pantigo Windmill which I will watch, and where I would be happy for this whole discussion to continue. I'd generally rather not split the discussion. Either way, I am glad you are contributing and I do think there is much to improve in that area. --Doncram (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Clay Faulkner House
- Ah, thanks, and i just followed up there. This is about Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clay_Faulkner_House and about stuff going on at Clay Faulkner House, and hopefully its Talk page Talk:Clay Faulkner House. Thank you for your kind remarks there. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Michigan fire station articles
No prob; I do want to finish Genesee County first (got six or so articles left, so I don't want to delay the satisfaction of checking it off). I'll jump on the Kzoo fire stations right after. Week or two, maybe? Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Alamogordo Woman's Club
Thanks for your welcome!
Hi Doncram, thank you for your warm welcome and for your many positive contributions to the encyclopedia! Free culture is a wonderful thing and I love Wikipedia's coverage of historic sites. Thanks for your many many contributions.
Thanks for your offer to help. As a new editor, right now I'm working on the Draft:Robert S. Munger page, but longer term, I see myself making edits relating to financial crises, financial regulation, and finance in general. The coverage in these areas can be good but is not always so great. Public information about the institutional details of finance in general can be spotty, though.
I've never worked on getting a new page added before, so any help you could offer on the Munger page would be greatly appreciated!
Currently I'm just adding more sources and information to the Munger page. For example, Munger was recently added to the Alabama Men's Hall of Fame, so I added that in the "Other" section you created. I'm also hoping to add a "See Also" section to link to the other Wikipedia pages that mention him. --Eisbetterthanpi (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice job on NRHP too
Reassessments for NRHP articles
Hi Doncram: I hope all is well. Do you remember the Courtlandt Place, Houston article that I created to provide context for the James L. Autry House (Courtlandt Place, Houston)? I have added a bit to some of the entries and included some new photos. Do you know anyone with the WikiProject who does reassessments? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you even understand what the issue was with the edit summary I pinged you on? (Hint: it's at least the third time I've had to make that sort of edit after you broke something.) Magic♪piano 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, no I don't. I doubt that I "broke" anything that wouldn't get fixed by semi-automated processes, and I think it is possible you are not aware of how some stuff works, both in general practices and in my general practices. Please enlighten me. Also, I suggest/request that you don't be sarcastic and that you don't try to evoke and invoke bullying/shitty tactics that were long used against me in the past. I would think you are probably aware of those going on, but I would be happy to explain if there is only an accidental resemblence, and if you seriously are not trying to allude to the bullying/shitty tactics of others. --Doncram (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- When you move an article (as you did Former Fire Station), you should fix the links to it, since you have actively broken something. You're an experienced editor, and you move articles; it's not sarcasm to point out that this is something you ought to know to do. (If there is some automated process by which they get fixed, then you should enlighten me, because I've never seen it in action, and I fix the links that break when I move things.) Magic♪piano 14:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I note that you are not denying, nor confirming, that you were trying to refer to previous bullying/shitty tactics by others. Okay, so I won't immediately go into that, though I will note that in general an approach to try to denigrate / run down an editor by creating a false narrative about how horrible they are, by repeated jabs, would indeed be bullying and shitty behavior.
- About my own general practices with respect to article moves and fixing links to disambiguation pages, I certainly do understand that moving articles because I am creating an appropriate disambiguation page does require follow-on edits. I have created many thousands of disambiguation pages. Here is one such edit (maybe after if not before your criticizing edit, but one would only have to go back another day or two before, to show more, it is simply what i do). I doubt that you can understand how many thousands of edits I have invested in "cleaning up after others" or otherwise, in setting up suitable disambiguation pages where others did not see or respect the need, and in checking for inbound links to the disambiguation pages and fixing all of them. When I determine that there is shitty article naming going on, and better disambiguation is needed, I often do create disambiguation pages, and I generally do follow out all the related fixes to the Nth degree, but it takes multiple edits and it can be an imperfect process. For example, if you check "what links here", there may be dozens or a hundred inbound links, all or most stemming from an appearance on a navigation template that appears on dozens or hundreds of pages. If you fix the inbound link from the navigation template, then check "what links here", it does not update, it seems to take a day or two or three. So it is hard to see if you made all the fixes necessary. I don't know if that happened in the cases you refer to, or not.
- But anyhow, about creating any link to any disambiguation page, there is a huge amount of semi-automated processes in Wikipedia addressing those, to which I myself have contributed fairly significantly. See wp:Daily Disambig (that is a redirect set up by me to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig) about daily bot reporting on such. There is a whole world about it, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, addressing what was more than 1,000,000 such links at one time. And there is a monthly competition about fixing the most such links, which I won with several thousand edits one month [yep, my name appears here in the "Disambiguator Hall of Fame"]. And there are several tools devoted to semi-automated fixing of them, one or more of which I think I have described at wp:NRHPHELP. I am pretty sure that I have fixed a hundred or a thousand times or more as many NRHP-related links to disambiguation pages as I have accidentally caused and did not fix myself, though you may indeed have found 3 instances of my not doing so.
- So, about your fixing one accidental link left to a disambiguation page, because I moved an article to make way for disambiguation and set up the disambiguation page and probably fixed other incoming links and created a necessary article or two to support the disambiguation page, but I accidentally missed fixing one inbound link, well bully for you that you found and fixed it. If that is what this is about. The huge links-to-disambiguation-pages-fixing-process would have fixed it soon anyhow. Thank you for fixing such a link, though.
- About pings in edit summaries with possibly critical tones, they are certainly subject to misinterpretation. I hope that i did misinterpret in suspecting that you were following along in the approach of others, and trying to build up some negative record to invoke later in some nasty arbitration or wp:ANI proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)