User talk:M2545/Archive 1

2009-2014

Nice adds

Thanks for adding the old photos to various historic Boston articles. They look great! Swampyank (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Balthazar Julien Févret de Saint-Mémin

Awesome - I'd been meaning to create this one for some time. Way to beat me to the punch. :-)

Fascinating character, isn't he? You know there's a portrait of Mother Seton out there that he did while she was still married? I have it in a book at home. No flatbed scanner, or I'd add it here. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi M2545. Your article John Harrington (ventriloquist) is actually a decent article. I deleted it per the request, but decided to (temporarily) restore it since the page was actually a nice start (see note on article's talk page, too). I respect your deletion request, but it's not a bad article; any reason for wanting it deleted? Best, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your contribs. It appears that the original page title was a mistake (John instead of Jonathan). Deleted the page again. :-) Have a nice day. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination

I have nominated Benjamin W. Crowninshield for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin W. Crowninshield. -- Donald Albury 15:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts

Hi, M2545. I'm curious why you created Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts; it seems idiosyncratic to me. Powers ^T 13:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi LtPowers. The Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts currently lists some 1,354 articles, just one after another, from A to Z. The high number of articles makes browsing an arduous process. I figured it might be helpful to differentiate at least between centuries, especially given Boston's relatively long history. M2545 (talk)

I'm not sure that's the best way to divide them up. Are there any other "people from" categories divided up this way? Powers ^T 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I checked around for precedent-- People from New York City; People from London; Paris; etc.-- and saw none with sub-categories specifying "People from" by century. However there are plenty of other topics subdivided by century, so I thought I'd be bold and just do it, and see what people think. M2545 (talk)

Well, I have a few thoughts. First, I'm not sure the category was big enough to need splitting. It may be better to add an alphabetical index first before splitting the category up. Second, I'm not sure by-century is a good way to split it (although I don't know of any better ways off-hand), because its meaning is ambiguous; is someone born in 1975 from "20th-century Boston"? What if they didn't live there until 2001? Third, the wording is odd; is "20th-century Boston" all that different from "21st-century Boston"? What does it mean to be from one versus the other? But these are just my thoughts. Powers ^T 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Boston Marine Society

Thanks for this -- I've been navigating in and around Boston for 40 years and never heard of the Society -- except when I saw it red-linked as I was editing Nixes Mate a few days ago. I did some minor touchup -- your background looks more political history than marine, so you missed a couple of links -- but it's a great little piece. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice adds

Great photo additions to various Boston historical articles this week. They really add a lot to the articles. Swampyank (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sea Witch

Thanks for the illustration of clipper Sea Witch. Bigturtle (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Boston Brigade Band

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boston Brigade Band, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion

The following subcategory of the Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion: Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts. A link to the discussion is provided at the top of the subcategory page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

photo adds to John Mein (publisher)

Thank you for the Bickerstaff's Boston Almanack adds to this article. They look awesome! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Proposed deletion

You removed the proposed deletion of Boston Housing Court without supplying any reason, or fixing any of the problems that I brought up in the prod. It is general courtesy to explain removal in the edit summary. I have listed this article at Articles for Deletion, and you are welcome to comment. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Healey Dall

Good to see someone starting this. I've been working around the edges of William Healey Dall and thought Caroline was an obvious gap in coverage.

I took the liberty of putting up a different file of the 1872 portrait. Archive.org generally has better scans than Google Books. This might benefit from enhancement - I don't have the right software. The downside of the Archive.org scans is the yellow background. Dankarl (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Boston Custom House

I noticed that you recently edited the the Boston Custom House article, removing the reference to the Custom House District which it is a part of. It is significant that it is part of the historic district that bears its name, and thus should be noted so. - not just "added to the National Register of Historic Places" which doesn't lead anywhere related. In fact, this article should really be given a "Contributing Property" infobox as part of the ongoing effort to unify historic properties as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Your thoughts?--Marcbela (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marcbela - The "Boston Custom House" article was intended to cover customhouses, generally, in Boston. The buildings have been located in different parts of the city, not just in the Custom House District. So it makes sense to include a "See Also" link to Custom House District. As for the 1849 building, the Custom House Tower (built 1915) seems to be the NRHP entity. Your thoughts? M2545 (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1849 Custom House and the 1915 Tower are a unique situation. Normally, they would all be in a single article, IMO. However, they each have their unique aspects and history. the Boston Custom House article is very informative with the previous buildings, with history to the present. I am not really sure at this point. How about stating in the first paragraph of the Boston Custom House article, "The 1849 Custom House along with the 1915 Tower are part of the Custom House District added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1973." This would clarify it.--Marcbela (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. Thx for discussion M2545 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Libraries

I noticed that you have started a bunch of articles for List of public libraries in Massachusetts. You may want to cross reference with List of Carnegie libraries in Massachusetts and Category:Libraries on the National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts. There are many articles already existing, many with photos. For example, I added a photo to Ashland Public Library (Massachusetts).--Marcbela (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. M2545 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Antoine Sonrel

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Stone Building (Lexington, Massachusetts)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Stone Building (Lexington, Massachusetts), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Stone Building. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

You should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else.

I have moved the page back to Stone Building, as I can't see any obvious reason to have it as Stone Building (Lexington, Massachusetts), unless you are planning to create more articles on other STone Buildings elsewhere. If that is the case, then please feel free to move it back, using the "move" button. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 10:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Hill Smith

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilbraham Public Library

Hi this is Tom991. I apologize for the deleations. I have decided that the article can stay up there. The reason why I deleted the article was because I was concerned because several years ago the Library people tried to go for a Taj Mahal type library and it was voted down and I am worried that they may try and do so again in the future when there are more important things to worry about in town such as a new Fire Station and new Police Station. I don't want the Wilbraham Wikipedia page becoming a war zone because that is not what it is intended for. So your right in keeping the library information up there. Again I apologize for the inconvience. Tom991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Milton: A Compendium (The History Press, 2010) by Anthony Mitchell Sammarco

I have removed material from this book from several articles, including, in one case, edits of it by you. If User:Anthony Sammarco is not the author, Anthony Mitchell Sammarco, then they are all copyright violations. If they are the same person, then it is, I think, WP:PROMOTION. I've never run across a case where we've allowed an author of a modern work to insert many paragraphs of his copyrighted work into WP:EN -- have you? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Jim: Yes, I agree that the recent additions by "Sammarco" seem like book promotion. However if the user "Sammarco" is indeed the author Anthony Sammarco, he is well-regarded, and Wikipedia would benefit from his content contributions. M2545 (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading photo of Dewey Square.

I just wanted to say thank you for uploading your photo of (essentially) [Dewey Square]. If it is okay with you I also added it to the Dewey Square article in the following manner? Dewey Square. Is that okay? CaribDigita (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

World

Just some thoughts: Maybe your entry in World should be in italics? Do you think it should be listed a little further down on the list (as it is no longer in circulation)? —Prhartcom (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Beal & Sons

Hi there. I noticed that you created an article on J. Williams Beal & Sons. My great grandfather, Orvile Alden Howard, was employed at J Williams Beal from about 1900 through 1922. I notice that you are quite active on Boston-area historical subjects and I was wondering if you might know if there are any surviving drawings from the early 1900s.

Thanks,

Scott Welch scott@harwel.com Islandeagle (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia Loves Libraries

I had heard there was some hope of the Cambridge Public Library this time around, has that had problems?--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please see discussion on the Wikimedia-boston list. M2545 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Keep up the good work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

National Theatre, Boston (1836)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of National Theatre, Boston (1836), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: National Theatre (Boston, Massachusetts). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Boston Board of Selectmen'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Boston Board of Selectmen', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.cityofboston.gov/archivesandrecords/findingaids.asp

• You added this in April 2010.
• I tried to load this link on 10 March, 12 March, 14 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ebsco

Hi, Don't you think that a better name for this cat would be "EBSCO" or "EBSCO Industries"? I've never seen the use "Ebsco". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Patch Media

Hi. I spent a great deal of time last week making a "criticism" section of the article. It's just as long as the "patch philosophy" section. That's typically the way that one judges that an article is balanced on Wikipedia. Also, in the interest of balance, I put in Patch's responses to that criticism. I'll ask it this way, how can the article be made more balanced? --Mblumber (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I think the "criticism" section is great, but it seems weighted in favor of Patch (and its giant parent company, AOL Inc.). For example, critiques of Patch are not necessarily also critiques of the "hyper-local news business model;" Patch is owned by a giant corporation, whereas other hyper-local news sites may be owned by actual local communities. See the "local doesn't scale" campaign begun in 2011 by a collective of small news publications. Also, the defensive quote from Farnham should be balanced by other quotes from different points of view.

As for the "Patch philosophy" section: Any commercial enterprise can claim to operate by a "philosophy," but the reality may be otherwise. AOL's stated goal for Patch is wonderful, but observers are reporting variances between the ideal and the actuality.

The following sentences contain several repetitions of words like "community" and "local," which begs the fact that every Patch site is a commercial undertaking by AOL Inc.: "The concept behind Patch is "hyperlocal journalism," with local community news editors filing stories and updating community-specific websites on local news from within the communities they serve. As of December 9, 2010, Patch had established hyperlocal sites in more than 500 communities across the United States." Wikipedia readers would be better served with more objective language that did not mirror public-relations-speak. -- M2545 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, however if you look at most articles about a topic on wikipedia, they generally have a mildly positive stance toward the subject. I don't think there's any doubt that AOL is trying to make money, and that Patch is a commercial venture. However, the language that you inserted was much more cynical and negative. There's no need to say, "patch claims to be a hyper-local publication but is in-fact a commercial venture by AOL that accepts advertising and uses it to pay for the site." That's true about any business. I'll continue to try and find alternative viewpoints, but in my opinion the article is fairly balanced at this point. --Mblumber (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps we might open our discussion to others. Would you mind if I cut-and-pasted our dialogue to the Patch talk page? -- M2545 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding faster.Yeah sure go ahead. --Mblumber (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I wanted to let you know that another editor has removed an external link you added to the page Odessa, as "non-notable, trivial references that are outdated, unreliable, and contribute nothing to the article or its content". I have noticed that you seem to be leaving huge numbers of these links for some reason. If you want to use these links, please could you add real content to the articles, citing the sources you are linking to. What you are doing at the moment is Wikipedia:Spam. --Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, M2545. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baedeker guides you have added

Hello, since you've added only the English titles of the classic guides, I thought I was being specific, unless you're thinking of adding the German and French titles as well. Personally, I think you could consider putting all these titles you've added in a new article on Classic Baedeker guides ( as the German Wikipedia article does), as you've done with the list of Murray guides article - by the way, you've done an excellent job there. One gets to see the titles without having to wade through the history of the firm. Perhaps this could be done with your Baedeker lists as well.

As this article is supposed to be about the history of Baedeker guides to the present day, I think the classic Baedekers should go in a separate article, as you're leaving out the modern guides. Just food for thought.

Your input is tremendous. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zananiri (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Rather than have 'English' added to each tirle, I, personally, would prefer 'English' in the section heading for clarity, as they are 'all' English titles. --Zananiri (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

NB I note that you have reverted to my headings for the new sections you created. I have just had another look at your Murray's Handbooks for Travellers article and find it excellent. I really do think that if you created an article entitled something like 'Baedeker classic Engish travel guides' or handbooks, it would be a welcome addition to the existing Baedeker articles. I deliberately kept away from entering only titles of classic English guides and revised editions, and entered only the new titles in all three languages produced by each Baedeker. So, it does look a bit odd and out of place (to me, anyway), seeing only English editions. I think there is a very strong case for creating a new article, with your lists a la Murray. In any case, I feel, your very useful lists are being wasted here and make this article far too long and disjointed. They deserve a home of their own, in my view.--Zananiri (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As you have not responded, I think I should let you know that I am considering deleting your 'lists' which for the history of Verlag Baedeker, which is what this article is about, appear to me to be totally irrelevant and superfluous i.e. out of place, since almost the whole article was written by me, before you made your entries, and I do not wish to endorse it in its present form. However, I may decide to move or remove all my own contributions to this article, rather than keep it in its present form, if you would prefer that alternative...--Zananiri (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to see you have created the Baedeker English guides page. I am not pleased about two sections which I inserted into the Karl Baedeker article I re-wrote completely being hijacked, as I do think that is where they belong. Karl Baedeker discovered the Wagner firm. It was his idea to have the maps. That should be acknowledged in the article on him. Also, I did some research on Hinrichsen as well and that, too, should stay there, as it refers to the first Karl Baedeker Rhine guide D000.

As your lists are not really an article, I hope you will put back my material where I placed it. In any case, Wiki rules frown upon what you have done, as far as I am aware. One is supposed to ask the writer of the material if he/she agrees. I will certainly try to do what you suggest about expanding the KB firm article with information about its other activities.

Re your Baedeker English list, unless you eventually include German and French titles, it will never be a complete list e.g. Indien in German, with coverage of India, Ceylon, Burma, South East Asia will never show up under your 'global coverage'. Worth thinking about. I like your various guide lists in general, but because Baedekers were published in three languages, you have to give this some thought. It is easily done.--Zananiri (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:M2545/sandbox

Hi there, I removed the square brackets around the categories in User:M2545/sandbox because they were making it appear in the article space categories diff. User drafts aren't supposed to appear in those categories. Please just add the square brackets back when you move it to the mainspace. Kind regards, James086^Talk 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Centuries

Hello M2545, I've noticed that you have been adding "Further Reading" sections to numerous articles. These seem like a good addition to Wikipedia. What I'm wondering about is your choice to abbreviate "century" with a "c." like in the form "Published in the 20th c." Since Wikipedia's style is generally to avoid abbreviations, and "c." is already in the Manual of Style as the abbreviation for "circa", I'm wondering if that abbreviation is the right choice. What do you think? SchreiberBike (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo

Your Jakarta timeline is another interesting addition, and reminded me of my stay there. It is many years since I was in Aleppo, which no longer exists as I saw it, but I think if you did an Aleppo timeline, it should be useful, seeing that it is in the news almost every day now. There are good Wiki articles on Aleppo but nothing like your timeline. Baedeker's Syria and Palestine contains some very useful information. Incidentally, there is not much information to add to the history of the Baedeker firm, as Karl Baedeker, who started out with some books for schools, devoted practically all his time to research and work on the travel guides and handbooks. His descendants followed suit. I notice that the German Wiki articles on Baedeker don't even mention the textbooks for schools and also dwell entirely on the guides. I know the firm published a magazine, unrelated to guidebooks, but that was incidental. Travel guides is essentially what the firm was about. It is also what made Baedeker different.--Zananiri (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I will do what I can with your Aleppo proposal, though I regard you as an expert in this field. As for the so-called Argentine Baedeker, it is well-known for not being a genuine Baedeker but collectors like to get hold of it because of its novelty value. I take it you are going to add the 1920s soon. By the way, Ireland was never covered in Great Britain, only in Grossbritannien. I will have a look at my Baedeker collection to see if I can provide you with any other information you may require.--Zananiri (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pleased you like the additions, but please note: I do not want any credits whatsoever. It is your article and yours alone. I was going to add the Alexander the Great bit today but as you've already done it, yes move it to mainspace. I notice you always say 'in power'. I would have said 'conquers' but we are playing with words, so it is a minor poimt. I think you should mention somewhere that Aleppo used to be known as Haleb and Beroea in previous incarnations. What do you think?--Zananiri (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I absolutely do not want any credit, amigo. When you think you are ready to move it to mainspace, do so. I will add to it as and when, if I find any missing bits.--Zananiri (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Re Aleppo earthquake, some sources say it was the third deadliest, others the 'seventh' so I just left it at 'one of the deadliest'. The Richter scale did not exist then. When I was at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, there was a kind of weighing machine there, on which one could stand and, by pressing buttons, experience different levels of the Richter scale. Incidentally, it is one of the best museums I have seen in the world. I think I spent more time there and at the Mexico anthropological museum than at oher national museums, apart from the British Museum and the Louvre. Have you done a Mexico city timeline? Or Oaxaca, where 80% of the people are purportedly descended from ethnic Indians? Oaxaca is absolutely riveting, in my opinion (POV)--Zananiri (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Baedeker Scandinavian guides

I don't know why you have not included these in your list under global coverage (Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc.). I think they are among the best. Perhaps you have a reason? Also, when you give a Baedeker as a reference in your timelife articles, wouldn't it be better to give the last edition published, as that would be the one with all the details e.g. Egypt 1929 when listing it in Cairo or Alexandria? Just a thought.--Zananiri (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you've already got Sweden, Norway, Denmark in your main list. Just transfer the countries to the geographic section. I will do as you suggest and add more Baedekers to the 1920s list.--Zananiri (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

1920s

I think I have got all the 1920s and have started on the 1930s. If you find any gaps, please add them. Re your other timelines, if you don't mind, I will add the population figures here and there.--Zananiri (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now finished the 1930s as well, so your list is complete, I think. I like your Alex (as the locals call it} timeline.--Zananiri (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-WWII

Hello, after the war, when Baedeker was revived, a very small number of Baedekers were published in the old format in English, before the Baedeker family sold the firm. As we are dealing only with old-style English Baedekers, I would like to add these, the last ones were the three GB guides in the 1960s. The intended fourth GB guide was never published. There is nothing in the 1940s, so we would have a couple for the 50s and the ones for the 60s and that's it, all wrapped up, but since it is your list, I will only add these if you think you want them there.--Zananiri (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but a second opinion is always useful.--Zananiri (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Synagogues

I think one ref in Alex and Cairo should suffice, as it is the same one throughout, unless you think differently.--Zananiri (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

BC and AD

Hello, When I was making additions to some of the Timeline articles you have created, I noticed that you still use B.C. and A.D. with the stops. I was going to change them but it would have taken ages so, reluctantly, I just added my own according to your style, but I notice that Wikepedia, too, advises against the use of stops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ERA#Era_style

I also think B.C. and A.D. are out of date.--Zananiri (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Alex

BTW not many foreigners left in Alex. When I was last there in 2006, they were a rare sight. You may also find this site useful: http://aaha.ch/

Keep up the good work. Where do you find the time?--Zananiri (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Yangon history

It might make more sense to create an article on Timeline of Burmese history. And, you might want to look at Timeline of New Zealand History for formatting help. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. I see we already have a Timeline of Burmese history. Still, you might consider working on that article. Most of what you have is probably duplicated there anyway. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Some technical suggestions about your Timeline articles

Hallo: thanks for your contributions about the timelines. I consider them a very good work, seriously, but about the question "history and geography" (and about your message to me) you have misunderstood what were my actions: Yesterday I've thinked to write to you 3 suggestion about article copyedit but, ok, I write 'em today:

1. About my contribs: I've not removed any geographical info, is not my habit and Historical geography is not related to the problem. This is a simple technical issue about the usage of navbox templates. Btw: I've simply done some action for copyedit and formatting: Geographical subdivision navboxes (quarters of the city x, municipalities of the province of xx etc) must be used only in the pages they link (city, quarters, municipalities etc). Their usage into other pages related to cities is forbidden. They are conceived only to link a list of administrative units within a city (quarters) or a province/county etc (municipalities, counties etc)... and so on... When you write the timeline for the history of a city you can add (if exist) a general city and town topic template (as Pune topics, Mumbai topics, Marseille, Berlin, Dubai topics, London topics etc...) even if your article is not linked (a timeline is, IMHO, an important general city topic), but not every template linking the city you're writing. For example in Timeline of Marseille history article "Marseille" template is allowed, "Arrondissements of Marseille" not, the shoulder template "History of France", of course, yes. For example, in timeline of Buenos Aires history you added also the template:World's most populous metropolitan areas only because it linked BA. Just a pair of examples (also to note that I've any prejudice about your work): in the generic city templates "Berlin" and "Havana" I've added a link to your timeline articles, than I've placed 'em (the templates) below your articles. In that case, the action is normal. Last (and recent) example regards Buenos Aires: As I said, I removed the templates about the list of wards (barrios), the most pop. metropolitan areas, and greater BA (that's a list of settlements and partidos). But just some minutes ago I've discovered the Template:Buenos Aires, in which I've linked the "timeline" article and placed below your article. Anyway, I hope I was clear and "easy to understand" about this technical "template" issue. Sorry for my English... Ah, yes... If you want to link on "see also" section articles about administrative subdivisons of the city you're writing, that's ok.
2. How to categorize your articles: When you add the "category:history of city x" it is redundant (also per style) to add also the catmain (ex.: "Category:History of Johannesburg" is sufficient, the "Category:Johannesburg" is redundant). Another kind of categories (when they exist) that could be good to add in your articles is "Category:city x-related lists" (ex.: Category:London-related lists) or, at least, the "Category:naxtion x-related lists" (ex.: Category:Uzbekistan-related lists). If the "history of city" category doesn't exist, as for Yangon, your categorization (Category:Yangon) is the deepest and so right. Of course, if you want, feel free to create an eventual Category:History of Yangon if you want.
3. Commons: This is just a simple suggestion to find the deepest and most related commons link to your articles, that are "history of ..." (history of johannesburg, of moscow, of madrid etc...). Suddenly they exist (you can search here on Commons typing -city name you need- after). If yhey don't exist, also the simple city link is well.

Anyway, I hope I was sufficiently clear explaining the problem and writing this technical suggestion. It is because I consider your articles very good works only needing some minor technical details. Btw, good work and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Timeline of Cape Town history the template:Western Cape Province you added may stay. It's an administrative navbox but, as it rarely happens, it has also some general topic links. And 2 links to history and timeline about province capital are, IMHO, allowed (as I did on tmp). Greets. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well. To answer: A template showing and conceived only for administrative units (boroughs, cities etc) is used only for them. By default, it's a normal standard per manual of style, copyedit and, for what I remember, this rule/policy could be even more strict than what I said. Your articles are primary topics related to cities (as geography of, history of, transport in, politics, demographics, coat of arms etc etc...) that are conceived to be transcluded into city topics templates, as Template:Johannesburg or Template:Buenos Aires (in which I've linked the articles you created). To resume: "to each article its closely and directly related template". Regards and good work :-) . --Dэя-Бøяg 22:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of historical topics with your creation of the new Timeline of Accra history article. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Mobile

Hey, thank you for creating the Timeline of Mobile, Alabama history page! It was a needed addition and I've added it to the main {{Mobile, Alabama}} template. Thanks again. Altairisfar (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

NPS

Hi, I have reverted your copy-and-paste of National Park Service to United States National Park Service. First, National Park Service is the official name; United States is just something you've added. Second, there's no indication that this needed to be disambiguated. I'm not aware of other countries having an agency by the exact same name, and this title has been fine for eleven years. Third, articles should be WP:MOVED, not copied-and-pasted, so that the edit history is preserved. Now there's just an article with an enormous edit as if you wrote the whole thing at once, with no reference to previous changes. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well we don't have an article about the Nigeria National Park Service for it to get confused with, and that does appear to be its official name. Should there be other articles, a hatnote would be appropriate. United States is not part of the official name of the NPS, so it would be inappropriate to call it that. There are also many other related articles using the NPS name, so they should be consistent (National Park Service Ranger, National Park Service Organic Act, Architects of the National Park Service History of the National Park Service, National Park Service General Authorities Act, and several others). Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of Burlington, Vermont history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Burlington, Vermont history 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/Timeline of Burlington, Vermont history until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Student7 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Types of library

Hi

In this edit[1] changed your nomination after I had replied to it, which makes a nonsense of my reply :(

Please can you undo that edit, and add your further suggestion in a separate signed comment? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Timeline of Atlanta history

Congratulations on creating that! It's almost unbelievable since I was so manic about creating Atlanta articles, but I'm no longer doing so as I have moved to Mexico City, so I'm now concentrating on improving the content for things around here. I had a look and your article looks great! One of the problems with Atlanta articles is that they were not balanced (they showed glory but not segregation, struggle and suffering) and yours is balanced. Kudos! I haven't checked but make sure it's well linked to from the main articles. Keizers (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Chronological order

Please do not put lists in reversed chronological order on the congressional district articles. For example. this change. Can you change the order so it's back in correct chronological order?—GoldRingChip 12:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• The 1920s/1910s edit is a clarification. The localities represented in the 1910s differ from those in the 1920s. M2545 (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That's great. I love the additions you're editing in! However, while you're at it, then, can you put them in the correct order? I suppose maybe a different editor before you was the one who started the reverse chron. Can you correct it?—GoldRingChip 13:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That's it (MA-4) - thanks! By the way, check out how that information is incorporated into the List of Representatives at California's 1st congressional district. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The table format for localities represented in the history of California's 1st congressional district is great. Easy to read, clean design. Do you know of an open-access source that provides precise dates for redistricting in each Massachusetts district? I will get there eventually using Official Congressional Directories and other annual sources, but a single comprehensive history would be nice. Advice welcome. M2545 (talk)
        • Isn't the date the same as the beginning of the new term of Congress (March 4 or January 3)?—GoldRingChip 14:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Start date for each newly drawn district might be the same as the beginning of the new term of Congress (March 4 or January 3), but not sure. Also need open-access source specifying start/end year and names of localities for each redistricted district. M2545 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
            • I don't have a good open-access (or any) source for the names of localities. The dates, however, do start/end on the date of the Congress. Usually, it's on the 3s: 1803, 1813, 1823, etc.—GoldRingChip 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks. Massachusetts's 8th congressional district has fairly full info about its varying localities over time. Do you know how to code a table to make it look like California's 1st congressional district? M2545 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Yes, I know how to code it. Do you need to know how to code a table (i.e. are you a table-coding beginner)?—GoldRingChip 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of San Diego history

Hello! I see that you recently moved the page Timeline of San Diego history to Timeline of San Diego, per Concision. I think the original title was better and have started a discussion at the talk page. Please give your thoughts and let's see what consensus turns out to be. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. I think either style is fine. Some interpret "timeline" as implying history, so the inclusion of both "timeline" and "history" is redundant (see e.g. Talk:Timeline of Richmond, Virginia history). M2545 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see from your contributions history that you have made dozens hundreds of such changes recently. Was there some discussion or consensus on which all these moves are based? --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Timelines" recently renamed were all created by me not too long ago, and none have had many additional editors. Since both "Timeline" title styles exist in Wikipedia, I figured I would be bold and go with the shorter version. M2545 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I liked your original title better, but it appears no one has objected to the moves at other articles, so I guess I will take that for (at least passive) consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this article until you linked it to at San Diego. I have a particular interest in San Diego history so I will continue to add to the timeline. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark me down as liking Timeline of Portland, Oregon history better, but I like the above I don't object to the change strenuously. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Paris Timeline

Thanks for your suggestion for the Paris timeline. This timeline is closely linked to the History of Paris article, so I've been following basically the same section headings there, those generally used in French history articles; (ancient, middle ages, renaissance, enlightenment, Revolution, Empire, etc. I'm worried that the 19th century is going to be a very large century, and I was planning to break it up into several sections. The 20th and 21st centuries can be defined simply as centuries, as they are now. Let me finish the timeline, and then we can look at it again and see if it would make sense to divide it up differently. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be standards for the inclusion of items into this timeline? I didn't think this was meant to be a comprehensive list of every event that has taken place in Paris, but a selection of important historic events. I've been looking at other timelines and it seems to me that the best model for Paris is the Rome timeline, which is concise and is limited to important historic events. As you request, I will restore those items, but I'm afraid this list is going to get extremely long of there's no requirement that the events have some importance to Paris history.

Also, while I'm in a complaining mood, have you looked at the article on Paris in the 19th century, in the banner that's been added to the timeline? It's truly awful- a Marxist version of French history, full of mistakes and opinions, and no citations. Why are we linking to that? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Lagos

Hi M2545. Please join me and invite other interested editors to join WikiProject Lagos by signing up at Participants. I'm delighted to collaborate with other editors to improve on and create excellent Lagos articles at our own conveniences. Eruditescholar (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erudite. I signed up yesterday! Excited to help expand coverage of Lagos in Wikipedia and on Commons. -- M2545 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Hello M2545, You are doing a great job with the Lagos timeline. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

City Archives Edit-a-thon

Thanks for helping us out remotely yesterday! Marta Erin (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for hosting! -- M2545 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Granada/Timeline merging

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Bye for now (PTT) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

2015-2023

Blackwell article

I haven't been able to find the full text of that article online, and I'd like to read it. Any chance you could smuggle me a copy by email (kelleher@ramblingrose.com) or other nefarious means? --Rosekelleher (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Salvatore LaMattina for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salvatore LaMattina 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/Salvatore LaMattina until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KDS4444^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Linehan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Linehan 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/Bill Linehan until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. KDS4444^Talk 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

This is English Wikipedia. Please do not insert links to Russian Wikipedia articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of cities of the Russian Empire in 1897

Hello! Your submission of List of cities of the Russian Empire in 1897 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! Ruby 2010/2013 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for your timelines!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Timelines are good

Timelines are good, but instead of just plopping a list of all the cities in Poland into each article, just use the "Template:Principal cities of Poland" template at the bottom. Cleaner and keeps the article on topic (Bialystok, not every other city). Plus I added a bunch of stuff and linked it in better. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Some milk for your household!

	Man Who Records Time and Has a Kitten
	Share this with your kitty! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Your diligence in creating and assisting in timelines is much appreciated. :) Elspamo4 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Dubai

Not at all, thank you for starting it! :) Will add more as time permits! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barn Star!

I appreciate it! I hope you enjoy all the contributions to Timeline of Richmond, Virginia Peace, MPS (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Maryland?

Why have you added the non-existent Timeline of Maryland link to History of Maryland, List of Governors of Maryland, and Timeline of Baltimore? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it usual to add the links when a page has been created and not before? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oslo - further reading

Thanks for your contribution to Oslo-articles. It is not clear why you shifted all the litertature ("further reading") to the "timeline" article. I will revert this edit in the Oslo-article. --— Erik Jr. 18:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not bold a non-verbatim reiteration of the title

Please do not bold a non-verbatim reiteration of the article title in lead, as you did in Timeline of Nijmegen and other articles. "[I]f the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear" (MOS:BOLDTITLE). Thank you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative formatting

Hi, you might want to have a look at Template:Timeline-item for an alternative way to format timelines. See Safety_lamp#Timeline_of_development for an example. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! -- M2545 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

[1] Please help me with the article Timeline of Nancy, France, which was moved to History of Nancy without discussion. I have restored the timeline but would like to show its history (begun November 2015).

[2] Also the new article History of Nancy looks as though I created it, which I did not. How to correct its revision history to show its creation on 22 January 2016 by User:Gryffindor?

M2545 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of how page moves work. When a page is moved, its entire history is moved along - you can think of it as renaming the article. So you did create what's now at History of Nancy, just not under that title. The old name was turned into a redirect that pointed anybody still looking for "Timeline of Nancy, France" to the content's new location. In particular, there's no need to duplicate the page's content since people searching for either name would have ended up at the same page (under the new name) anyway. I'll thus restore the redirect. If you think the content should better be under the old name - I tend to disagree since we don't have Timeline of Paris, France but History of Paris, for example - I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the (new) talk page, Talk:History of Nancy. Huon (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Years in [state] template

What is your standard for putting {{Years in state}} in articles? For example, are you putting {{Years in Arkansas}} in every article about Arkansas? You put it in List of United States Senators from Arkansas, and that seems excessive and unnecessary.—GoldRingChip 13:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @GoldRingChip:. I have added the template sparingly, to state-related lists and histories that span a substantial number of years, usually a few articles per state (more than 2, less than 10 generally). The goal is to aid navigation thru the years of history relevant to that particular article. The list of Arkansas senators for instance spans decades, and so the year box may be of interest to some readers of that page. -- M2545 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

City timelines

Timelines are cool, but it would be great if you would use spaced en dash rather than spaced hyphen as separator. Also, it would be best to not include trivia like "X becomes mayor" unless you're noting something special about that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with resolving the following disagreement: 1800s heading vs 19th century. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is fine. All I ask is that a more common location be used for any extended discussion as it potentially applies to more than just one article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As Stevietheman has alluded to, your own talk page (and by proxy, a {{help me}}) is not the best place/way to gather discussion (since I might be the only person who sees this before it gets closed). If there is no one article this discussion is about, you should open a discussion at the Village Pump. If it is about a specific article, please use its talk page. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. M2545 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Genuine thanks for your work

Although there is a minor dispute over the presentation of centuries, I do genuinely appreciate the improvements you have made to Timeline of Louisville, Kentucky recently. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! M2545 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continued efforts to expand Wikipedia's coverage of history via Timelines. Vami_IV✠ 01:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Erfurt

Hey, I saw you're working on Timeline of Erfurt and thought you might like to know that I put a bunch of work into Principality of Erfurt at the start of the year; you might find it useful for expanding the Timeline. Great work! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

reply from Belastro

Hi M2545 -- Although Hathitrust allows anyone to read books scanned by Google, Hathitrust only allows "members of partner institutions" to download such books. Perhaps you access Hathitrust via an academic account at a school that is a "partner" (i.e., one that paid to get past the Hathitrust pay-wall); in that case you might not see this restriction. The Internet Archive allows both viewing and downloading, as does Google books, while Hathitrust allows only viewing -- unless of course, as a member of a very exclusive club, your access has been purchased; by far the vast majority of people on this globe do not have such paid access to Hathitrust. Just sticking up for the rest of us... --Cheers, Belastro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belastro (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. -- M2545 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, congratulations on being selected as a Wikipedia Scholar. And, this time, correctly signed: Belastro (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Yarsanism

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yarsanism —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of Syracuse, Sicily for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of Syracuse, Sicily 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/Timeline of Syracuse, Sicily until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amory N. Hardy

The article Amory N. Hardy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability, fails WP:BIO.

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. Fram (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Amory N. Hardy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amory N. Hardy 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/Amory N. Hardy until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of Dhaka: worldwide view

The bibliography at the end of Timeline of Dhaka has been tagged with {{Globalize}} from your very first revision, in 2013. The bibliography has grown considerably, but no one has removed the tag, perhaps because the reason you placed it is unclear. Would you elaborate here or at Talk:Timeline of Dhaka on what viewpoints you think may be missing, or remove the tag yourself if you consider it resolved? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tag is now removed, since the bibliography has expanded a bit more since 2013. -- M2545 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Centre for the Study of Existential Risk

Hi, could you elaborate on Talk:Timeline_of_Cambridge as to why Centre for the Study of Existential Risk belongs on the timeline? Thanks --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of Port Louis

I have removed a CSD from this article. It was probably vandalism. If it happens again let me know and I will block the user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Rouen

Hi M2545, I just happened to look at the article for Rouen (mainly because I drove past the other day and was interested to find out about the place). It struck me as odd that the article talks mainly about "technicalities", while the history has been moved to a separate article. At the same time, the history article is reasonably short so that made me wonder why it was moved into a separate article. My gut feeling was to merge this back into the main article to make that one more balanced and well-rounded. As you split the articles at the time, I was wondering what your thoughts are? Regards, _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jake Brockman: I agree the "History" section in the main Rouen article should have a few paragraphs summarizing the city's history. The separate History of Rouen was created because the city is quite old, and has had an eventful history; the article could be expanded and improved, especially in terms of its sources. Also, the French language version has 36,744 bytes, while the English language one contains only 13,639 bytes at present. -- M2545 (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, compared to Paris or Stuttgart (two cities I picked randomly), the history article about Rouen already seems like a summary. I don't think it makes sense to summarise this even further without making the history part look like a stub in comparison to other well rounded sections. My instinct would be to merge the history article back into the main article (with redirect - as it was before) until such a point where someone with French skills can take the native article and build on that. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: It would make sense to copy and paste this discussion to the Talk page of the Rouen article. Do you agree? -- M2545 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

agree and done. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Expanded article for Liwonde National Park

Hello, M2545. On behalf of the nonprofit organization African Parks via the Wyss Foundation, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've submitted an expanded and updated draft of the Liwonde National Park article for consideration at Talk:Liwonde National Park. I am looking for someone to review this draft for accuracy and neutrality, and to copy over content appropriately as a replacement of the current article, which is almost entirely unsourced. Since you're a member of WikiProject Africa, I thought I'd reach out to see if you are interested in taking a look at the proposed draft. My requests for help at several WikiProjects have gone unanswered for a while now. Might you be willing to take a look at the draft? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: The article looks quite good. Thanks for working to improve it. A few suggestions:

• Avoid using tabloid newspapers as sources. For example instead of the Daily Mirror, use a reputable source.
• Try to find scholarly sources (rather than newspapers). What have scholars from various disciplines written about park? Has scholarship evolved over time? This type of summary info can be quite helpful to readers. Also, articles sourced with scholarship are easier to defend against potential accusations of public relations bias.
• Link to other Wikipedia articles only once. For instance, it is okay to link to the first mention of Malawi in the first paragraph, but not in subsequent mentions.

Overall, great work. Drop me a line if you have any more questions. -- M2545 (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the proposed draft. Regarding your 3 concerns: 1) I found other sourcing about the 2003 stampede, and removed a DM source citing the presence of egrets, to reduce reliance on DM. 2) I searched for sourcing at Google, Google News, Google Books, and HighBeam Research, and tried to incorporate as many citations as possible, including scholarly works. In addition to newspaper, inline citation direct readers to books, International Union for Conservation of Nature reports, and journals. 3) My experience is that words are linked once in the lead and the first time they appear in the article’s body, but I am fine with you removing a few, if it reduces any sense of overlinking. Given these changes, do you have any interest in replacing the current article with the proposed draft? Of course, you're welcome to make the adjustments needed for the article to be fully compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: Can you move the draft to the main namespace yourself? -- M2545 (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest, so I am looking for a volunteer to copy over the markup appropriately, hence the edit request on the article's talk page. Is this something you would be willing to do, assuming you're comfortable with the proposed draft? Inkian Jason (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Books in France

The article Books in France has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable books in France. Sorry.

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. The Reptile Editor (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Media of Germany

Your text doesn't mention the GDR.Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice timelines!

Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Books in the United States

Hi! I see you're trying to give your new article Books in the United States some wikilinks so it's not an orphan.. but in my opinion it doesn't belong on library list pages. I understand the reasoning, a library holds books, your article is about books, but should a list of public libraries in Georgia, Seattle, etc really have a "See Also" section linking to this specific page? I'm even more confused why a reader would find that link helpful if looking for a List of libraries in 18th-century Massachusetts. It's going from something very specific to something extremely general. I guess I just don't see how it fits appropriately. The "See also" section is usually reserved for articles intrinsically tied to the page in question, not topics loosely connected by a general word (in this case, books). I figured I'd ask on your talk page because I'm interested in your thoughts! Thanks! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Libraries exist to collect and preserve books, so Wikipedia readers interested in one US-specific topic might appreciate a "See also" link to the other. -- M2545 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It just seems awful general. For example looking up a specific cancer I would expect to see related cancers under that header, but not something general like "illnesses of the human body". I might just be picky! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Florida_History_Navbar

Hi M2545, I wanted to let you know that I've edited the Florida History Navbar with the explanatory summary "The possessive "state's" modifies the following noun, not the adjectival "Native American"; the state doesn't have ancestry, but it has history." I saved this change, but it's not reflected on pages with that navbar. I don't understand the transclusion process, even after reading the associated help pages. Could you please take a look? I should say also that your prolific work on timelines is much appreciated. Carlstak (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Years in Nicaragua

Template:Years in Nicaragua has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NYC year nav

Template:NYC year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Music lending libraries has been nominated for discussion

Category:Music lending libraries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

..a good barnstar..nice code in 2018

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message is basic..great job in wikipedia.....timeline of salem....

DYK for Timeline of Cluj-Napoca

Hi M2545,

I am reaching out regarding my DYK Nomitation for Timeline of Cluj-Napoca. I got some feedback that I need to expand the lead to 1500 characters and noticed you have been involved with many timeline articles. The main reason for not expanding the lead more is to keep it "in sync" and consistent with all the other articles in Category:Timelines of cities in Europe, such as Timeline of London or Timeline of Frankfurt. Do you think that I should deviate from this, in order to achieve DYK? Do you perhaps have an example for a list or timeline article achieving DYK? Thanks! Codrin.B (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Codrinb. Thanks for your good work on the Cluj city timeline. Feel free to create a lede section for it. Your expertise would be most welcome. -- M2545 (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I updated the lead in the article to make it 1500+ (compliant with DYK requirements). Best regards. Codrin.B (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Pacifism in France

Hello, M2545. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pacifism in France".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Massachusetts Legislature

Many thanks for your recent project on the legislative seats in Massachusetts! This is a valuable addition to the encyclopedia... I only wish the seating system made more sense. I have started some work on the legislative elections beginning in 1787; if you have any resources regarding those races, please do not hesitate! Best wishes, -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: Thanks for your work on elections! For info resources, you might check the Massachusetts State Library blog and website. The latter also offers an ask-a-librarian service. Regards, -- M2545 (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating 'Timeline of Marrakesh' Marrakchino (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts legislature article names

M2545, thanks for all the work you're doing on Massachusetts legislative topics. It's inspired me to go back and try to complete the work I'd done a few years ago on histories of all the legislative districts. I do have a couple comments and would like to open a discussion on the article naming conventions, based on the guidelines of WP:TITLE.

I see that you've started writing articles about each legislative session, with names such as 179th Massachusetts General Court (1995-1996). I don't think the parenthetical date range is necessary in the title (obviously it should be mentioned in the article lede). "179th General Court" is the official name of the body, or perhaps "179th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"; 179th Massachusetts General Court is probably our best WP:COMMONNAME. The dates aren't necessary for disambiguation because there was only one 179th Massachusetts General Court.

The dates in the title are meant to keep things clear. Most people won't remember the dates of a given numbered General Court. Given a list of just numbered terms, someone would have to click through to find the date, and that's just time-consuming for everyone. Imagine this category without the dates. A dateless list would be annoying for people who haven't memorized the dates associated with each ordinal. -- M2545 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

California legislative sessions and North Carolina General Assemblies also include dates. -- M2545 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For the legislative districts, I would guess that the naming system being used -- Massachusetts Senate's 3rd Middlesex district, etc. -- is by analogy with similar articles about federal districts, such as Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district. For the federal districts, these article names at least sound like a WP:COMMONNAME. Because of the way Massachusetts' state legislative districts are named, however, what results from following this template is an awkward formation (i.e., lacking in WP:NATURALNESS), particularly for the multi-county districts like Massachusetts Senate's Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden district. I don't think anyone uses those words in precisely that order when describing that district.

WP:TITLE would have us use the official, or the most common, name as the article title. Using a descriptive name (note "congressional" and "district" lowercased) starting with the possessive form of the state name makes sense for US House districts, where the official name is simply 1st District, 4th District, etc., and the name is shared by dozens of other districts across the country. For Massachusetts legislative districts, where each district has an official and in most cases unique name, we should be using that name. So I would suggest one of the following systems, which are based on the actual names of the districts as written in the redistricting legislation:

A - always disambig 1st Middlesex District (Massachusetts Senate) Middlesex and Suffolk District (Massachusetts Senate) 1st Middlesex District (Massachusetts House) 37th Middlesex District (Massachusetts House)

B - disambig only when necessary 1st Middlesex District (Senate) Middlesex and Suffolk District 1st Middlesex District (House) 37th Middlesex District

C - always use house name 1st Middlesex Senate District Middlesex and Suffolk Senate District 1st Middlesex House District 37th Middlesex House District

... the key difference being whether to use the state and/or house name as disambiguation always, or only when there are senate and house districts with the same name.

I followed the district names created here by User:GoldRingChip in 2017. -- M2545 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Also in Wikidata there are multiple access points eg "3rd Middlesex", "Third Middlesex", "Massachusetts State Senate 3rd Middlesex District". -- M2545 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I could be WP:BOLD about this, but in deference to the amount of work you've put into this project I thought it best to discuss it here first. If you'd like, we could also discuss it at WP:MASS. Cheers! _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toll Booth Willie. Good idea to move discussion to WP:MASS or WP:POLITICS. -- M2545 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I was coming to your talk page to raise the same issue after seeing the articles appearing on the AlexNewArtBot feed. The year appears to be unnecessary when you have the ordinal. Happy to join the discussion if/when it's started. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hey M2545. Thanks for the incredible work you've done on these. I'd be glad to help you flesh them out. I agree with the others, though, that the year isn't needed in the title. I see what you're saying about California and North Carolina, but they don't use both the number and the year. For example, it's North Carolina General Assembly of 1868–1869 not 78th North Carolina General Assembly (1868–1869). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toll Booth Willie, Number 57, and Slugger O'Toole: OK. So which do we prefer:

• style #1: 179th Massachusetts General Court
• style #2: 1995-1996 Massachusetts General Court
• style #3: Massachusetts General Court of 1995-1996
• style #4:  ???

-- M2545 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

M2545, My first choice is #1, then #3, and finally #2. Also, because the ping didn't work for me, I'll try to ping Toll Booth Willie and Number 57 to make sure they see this. Thanks again! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Are they commonly known by their ordinal number, or is that something largely just used for numbering on Wikipedia? If they are, then I prefer #1. If not, I think #2 is better as it's easier to understand. Probably worth creating redirects from the other possibilities whatever title format is settled on. Cheers, Number 57 23:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've restarted the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts, and responded there. Thanks! _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 02:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Elmer Chickering

Hello. A closer reading of the source document suggests that Mrs. R.M. Wilson was the wife of Elmer Chickering's chief camera operator, presumably R.M. Wilson, and not of Chickering himself. Do you have another source to confirm this one way or another? Verne Equinox (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Verne Equinox: Thanks for catching that! Your interpretation seems correct. (This was the source). -- M2545 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hello M2545, there are some Redlinks on your page.
Are you maybe able to delete them or create the pages for them? -- Daniton999 Talk 08:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you already did it. --

Daniton999 Talk 08:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rating new pages

Hi!

Thank you for all the new pages you've been creating lately. This is just a quick note to say that where it's obvious what the quality rating of a new page is, it's really helpful if you can add it to the talk page yourself. There's currently a huge backlog of unrated articles in most of the big WikiProjects, and it's much better if you can quickly add your own rating to pages you're creating.

If you're not sure, leave it and another user will come by and do it. Thanks again for all the content you've been creating. Gazamp (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Gazamp:. Will do. Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for your work on assessments! -- M2545 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A splitting headache

Hello, M2545. What are these edits? You've added tags claiming, each time, that "It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article", with a link to the discussion on the Talk page. You've done this for Michigan, Maine, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia and possibly others. But I have not yet found a single Talk page that has the promised discussion.

If you're going to propose a split, please provide your reasoning for it. We can't discuss with you if you don't discuss with us. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney: Done. Thanks for the reminder. Best regards, M2545 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Way to go for all of your work on the election summary pages! MsRex (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, M2545, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have a political expert with a clear strategy on the project. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks! -- M2545 (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

1817–1818 Massachusetts legislature addition

@M2545: Also added the issuance of the corporate charter for the Suffolk Bank to the 38th Massachusetts General Court article. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: Wonderful! Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jamshid Bayrami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamshid Bayrami 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/Jamshid Bayrami 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.

Mardetanha (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Legislative links on gubernatorial articles

@M2545: I appreciate all of your work on Massachusetts articles, particularly your recent links to relevant legislative pages on the gubernatorial articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it make more sense to link the newly elected legislature rather than the legislature in session at the time of the election? e.g. The 1828 gubernatorial article should link to the 1828–29 legislature and the 1830 should link to 1831 and so on. Even in those rare cases where the election was decided by the legislature, as in 1833, 1849, and 1850, that decision fell to the incoming legislature (1834, 1850, and 1851 respectively) rather than the incumbent members of the General Court. Just trying to figure out what you were going for here.

Cheers, -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: : Hi. Thanks for * your * work on Massachusetts political history.

As for MA gubernatorial elections, I have added See also links to the state legislature that would have contributed to the political mood at election time. For example, voters would choose a governor in November 1907 for a variety of reasons, including their assessment of the current governor, current/recent legislature, economy, etc.

In contrast, for the article about the victorious 1908 governor, there is a See also link to the concurrent 1908 legislature, since they would have worked together.

Does that make sense to you? -- M2545 (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@M2545: Makes total sense to me. If you agree, I think it would be wise to do the following (taking the 1908 election as my example) on each:

	===See also=== *[[1908 Massachusetts legislature]], for the legislature in office during this campaign and election *[[1909 Massachusetts legislature]], for the legislature elected concurrent with this election

Or something worded similarly. I don't think it can hurt to include both, provided we describe the relevance of each legislative term. Let me know what you think. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! -- M2545 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Jersey year nav

Template:New Jersey year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your involvement in articles on housing

I see that you are involved in lots of articles on housing in the United States. Is there a wikiproject or a group of editors that are doing this? Or are you just on your own? Flejern (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Flejern: I'm not part of a particular group. You might check out the group Wikimedians for Sustainable Development. Also there was a 2020 housing editathon; you might consider reaching out to those particpants too. Good luck and keep in touch. -- M2545 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indiana year nav

Template:Indiana year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Redistricting" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Redistricting and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Redistricting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 11:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of History of Oxford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Oxford 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/History of Oxford 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.

Banks Irk (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Redistricting" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Redistricting and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 14 § Redistricting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alaska year nav

Template:Alaska year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alabama year nav

Template:Alabama year nav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of Yerevan

You may want to take a look at these edits: [2] & [3] 76.14.122.5 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Years in Arkansas

Template:Years in Arkansas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Years in Vermont

Template:Years in Vermont has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Polyanthos (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polyanthos (magazine) 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/Polyanthos (magazine) 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.

JMWt (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 1301 (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1301 (disambiguation) 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/1301 (disambiguation) 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.

Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Years in Yugoslavia

Template:Years in Yugoslavia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joy (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1358 (disambiguation)

The article 1358 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

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.

Also:

• 1357 (disambiguation)
• 1304 (disambiguation)

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)