User talk:Station1/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Station1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Governors Island

The Times said today Governors Island closes Sunday. There is no mention of the open house. [1] The Park Service is closing it Sunday. --K72ndst 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I will update with a citation. Station1 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty location

The Statue of Liberty is much closer to Jersey City than to New York City. That's not even possibly in dispute, it's a simple fact: just look at a map.

The Statute of Liberty is "in" New York State. That's not seriously in dispute, either, although Jersey boosters often try. The issue is discussed at length in the article on Liberty Island.

If you have anything important to add regarding the location of the Statue of Liberty, please discuss it in Talk:Statue of Liberty or Talk:Liberty Island before changing the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Island is _part_ of New York City. You can't possibly get any closer than that. Station1 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

!!!! OK, you have a point, assuming you're correct about Liberty Island being part of New York City. I don't think we have any material or references bearing on that point in either Liberty Island or Statue of Liberty, if I've overlooked something my apologies.

Please discuss this at Talk:Statue_of_Liberty#Is Liberty Island part of New York city? before changing anything, and let's see what other editors have to say on the matter.

If you have a nice, clear, unambiguous reference from a reliable source that says it's part of New York City, this is the time to mention it. If there's already one and I missed it, then by all means rub my face in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see second of the two references at Liberty Island. Station1 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for writing about Battery Weed. I enjoyed reading it. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert McClellan (NY treasurer)

The different spellings are in the article's sources, it seems everybody writes it in a different way. The only known form anywhere else (i.e. other people's names) is McClellan, a common surname in Ireland. He himself was an early immigrant, and probably the first man of this name in Albany. Newspaper editors of the times (until the late 19th century or even later) misspelled a lot of names (Lyman Tremain/Tremaine; Theophilus C. Callicot/Callicott; Robert Denniston/Dennison - only to mention a few). The same might have happened to McClellan (Mac Clallan, Mc Clellan, McClallen....), and then one copies the other and the mistake is perpetuated, like a genetical mutation... Since I have a source as reliable as the others (or even more: there was only one mistake in Jenkins so far, but about five already in The Civil List), I prefer to use the only commonly known spelling. Kraxler (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bronson Avenue

FYI: I reverted your edit to this disambiguation page because your action was contrary to the determination that resulted from lengthy discussion at Talk:Bronson Avenue (Ottawa). --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no such "determination" to allow a page of nothing but red links, nor could there be, thank goodness. In fact, I warned against that result as part of that discussion. A page of red links is a disservice to readers and editors -- readers because they are taken to an extra page unnecessarily, and editors because they have to go back and edit articles for no reason, as one did to half a dozen or more articles because of this -- and is contrary to the Manual of Style. Station1 (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

reversal of Our American Cousin (opera) synopis

Please in the future do not reverse a removal of text when it is removed for copyright reasons until after we get the permission to use it archived in the WP:OTRS system. In this case it was ok as we got the permission we wanted, but if we don't get a confirmed permission through the OTRS system, we don't need the potential copyright violation sitting on the article. Thanks —— nixeagle 19:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, re-reading that, you were right to add the text, I read that wrong. :S. What is strange is that in our OTRS system we asked them to confirm GFDL, and I was here to confirm that on wikipedia now that we got the confirmation. Sorry for the fuss. —— nixeagle 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Equestrian order

Why did you revert the move to Equestrian order (Roman)? I changed it because "equestrian order" is a generic term that could refer to any knightly order esp. medieval ones e.g. the Order of Teutonic Knights. Equestrian order (Roman) is the specific and accurate title for this article. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But I stick to my point that "equestrian order" in normal English usage is generic and not restricted to the Roman group. It's the same as calling an article "Senate" when you mean the Roman senate rather than the U.S. or other senates. I'm aware that the title was changed not long ago from Equestrian (Roman) (unwisely, in my opinion). But I cannot see why adding (Roman) to the new title should be controversial, since it makes the title more specific amd accurate. At the same time, anyone entering just "equestrian order" is redirected anyway, so I don't see a problem. PS: I didn't just make some changes, I've rewritten the article from scratch, as it was a complete mess before my (first) intervention. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to argue with you about the arcana of Wiki policy - I'm sure you're right technically. What I'm saying is just plain commonsense. Why do we have to go through a laborious and time-consuming process to denote as "Roman" an article about a Roman institution? And why on earth would anyone object to that? BTW, just to prove my point about "equestrian order" being a generic, not specific, term take a look at Order of the Holy Sepulchre, whose full title is "Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem". Indeed all the knightly orders supported by the Vatican are officially known as "Pontifical equestrian orders". In fact, "equestrian order" is an established alternative term for what Wiki calls a chivalric order, so if anything, "equestrian order" should redirect to that article, which is generic, rather than to the specific one about Roman equestrians. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wenham, Massachusetts

Thanks. That was foolish of me. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Tree (film)

Hi. I moved the article back to Joshua Tree (1993 film) and made Joshua Tree (film) a redirect to the disambiguation page. I did that because there is another film titled Joshua Tree, so the original page name of the article about the 1993 film was appropriate. --Una Smith (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I found mention of the short already on Wikipedia, so it passes my test. The date is a typo. I was strongly reminded of A Streetcar Named Desire (film). Thanks for catching that. --Una Smith (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bliss (band)

Yeah, absolutely. An article on Bliss was A7'ed long ago and I recreated it earlier this month. A few days later, it seems, someone independently wrote an article for them on the German wiki, then decided last week to translate it and paste it in here, without realizing that I'd already started one. Chubbles (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Tree

Hi. As I explained on Talk:Joshua tree (disambiguation)#Requested move and on Talk:Joshua Tree, the majority of incoming links to Joshua Tree do not relate to the plant. So please stop redirecting Joshua Tree to Yucca brevifolia. --Una Smith (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of incoming links to Joshua Tree do relate to the plant. In any case, a title should not redirect to a dab page unless it itself would otherwise be a dab page. Based on the discussion at Talk:Joshua tree (disambiguation) I do not believe there is a consensus that that would be the case here. Joshua Tree was a stable redirect to the plant for some time before you changed it to point to the dab page. I merely reverted your change. Station1 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there are zero incoming links from mainspace to Joshua Tree; I fixed them all, and as the editor who fixed them, I attest that the majority did not relate to the plant. --Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

True, none from mainspace but there are some from user pages. Station1 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Argo

Hi. You disambiguated the link on Argo to Joshua Tree, California. How did you figure it out? I searched Google but could not tell from the search results if the correct link should be Joshua Tree, California or Joshua Tree National Park. --Una Smith (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the IMDB external link on the page. It may not always be completely accurate but is usually reliable enough for basic data. Station1 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary comments

Could you please provide more accurate summary comments than you did here? Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan

Whoops, I completely read your edit incorrectly and thought it was going the other way. Complete brain fart on my part, sorry. I switched it back; thanks for double-checking.Basket548 (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WNBA Infobox

Hi, I checked it out and the problem is that the wiki code won't read the team name properly unless it is not surrounded by these: [[ ]]. The team name links automatically. So if you see any more player pages with the same problem, just go in and take out the [[ ]] around the team names and it should work fine. Nickv1025 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lullaby (Jewel album) move

There are 5 out of 5 votes on the survey opposing the move because of a recent discovery of the wikipedia page Lullaby (Sophie Barker album). Please withdraw you move request or keep it (but the point is basically mute)

Thank You, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You, I'm sure the other Wikipedians will be pleased!, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Koko (Parker)

Hi! I have a little trouble following your reasoning at Talk:Koko (Parker)#Requested move. First you said that the character from The Mikado would probably be primary topic if it had an article, and then below you argue that the disambiguation qualifier isn't needed because it's unlikely that readers will be looking for the character by typing in "Ko-Ko". Wouldn't that mean that it's in fact not primary topic then?

If the character is primary usage I think we should follow the usage of Danzig (which redirects to the primary usage, Gdańsk) vs Danzig (band). That would mean making Ko-Ko a redirect to the primary usage and moving the composition to Ko-Ko (composition). I have no opinion on which the primary topic is, however. It's a shame there are so few people commenting. Jafeluv (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. I was supporting your original proposal to move to "Ko-Ko" while at the same time trying to address 70.29.208.129's opinion that the Mikado character is primary usage. What I was trying to say was that if, hypothetically, the character "Ko-Ko" had a separate article, then I think 70.29.208.129 would most likely be correct that it would get more hits than the Parker composition (I base that opinion on the large number of hits for The Mikado). But I was trying to point out that that's irrelevant because the character does not have it's own article. Primary usage criteria apply only among article titles, generally. I was also trying to add that once the article was moved to "Ko-Ko", a hatnote should be added because, even though there would be no other article with the precise name "Ko-Ko", some readers who land there might be looking for the non-existent article about the character or some other similarly spelled article, and they need to be pointed in the right direction.

The Danzig situation is completely different because Danzig and Gdansk are both exactly the same thing and there is a major article about the one city with two names; it's really almost a unique case. In this case "Ko-Ko" the composition and "Ko-Ko" the character are two different things, only one of which has an article (the other being covered in another article about a broader topic), so I think the one with the article gets the name. Remember this has nothing to do with relative importance or usage in the world at large; it's only about titling articles on Wikipedia. I hope this helps clarify, but if not let me know. Station1 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: And I see an admin has also agreed with your proposal and just now moved it! Station1 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. If someone creates an article about the character I guess we'll have to reconsider the situation, but until then the correct place for the article is Ko-Ko. I see the page has already been moved. Thanks for your comments! Jafeluv (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare

I removed your move request because "film" was in lowercase. I don't know if there is a double redirect somewhere and you came to that page from A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 Film), but the page you added the move deletion request to is lowercase.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the removal of the template, since I realized it was a speedy delete I put it back and added the hangon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Film) and noticed the capital F. I'm just trying to move it to A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 film) based on WP:CAPS. Station1 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Looking more closely, I now see there's more going on here than first met the eye. If you need to do anything regarding A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 Film), feel free to remove my speedy template on the redirect. Station1 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, where it was moved to (A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)) shouldn't exist at the moment anyway. It fails WP:NFF. I have redirected that back to the franchise page, where all the reliable info on the film is listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New York

I'll go with that, but... where in the constitution does it state the city's name at all? --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htm - see table of contents and especially Articles VI and VIII. Station1 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; the version I was searcing through must have been partial or old. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

National Memorial Ride

Thanks for your suggestions. Im pulling my hair out with this site. We keep getting quoted as either not notable (even when its supported by Two Federal Gov't Depts (DND/VAC), The Commonwealth War Graves Commision, The Legion (Dominion Command), The City of Ottawa, and at least 10 motorcycle riding groups participating would that not be notible as a Wiki Motorcycle awareness issue? I looked at the following sites to get an idea of what you guys want to see,

AIDS Vaccine 200,Knoebels' Amusement Resort,Love Ride, Chick-fil-A Kyle Petty Charity Ride , Across America, Ride for Heart. Freewheelers EVS, John Derringer (commentator),2008 Centurion Boats at the Glen, Riding Into History, Warlock Motorcycles, Institute of Advanced Motorists

And they are all charitable rides. We are a memorial ride with a Canadian Forces Remembrance Service and then some Charitable activities which I never mentioned because I thought that would be advertising

You suggested we link to the CAV, that would be an issue for us legally. They are a For Profit owned biking group (Their site is nothing but self promotion with dead links from thier own site) and our Corporation is a Non-Profit. There are issues of Canadian law for us to be seen as part of a For Profit organization. There are some other issues, which I would be glad to relate offline.

Im just a retired tanker who now rides a bike, is there anything you can do to help, maybe with the wording, or format? I really thought our last effort was very noteable and non-advertising

Cheers --GankT19 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly help with wording and format, but if the topic itself is not notable, a separate article will not hold up. I see your last article has been "userfied" and I will add a more properly formatted article right below it on the same page. But what you really need is a couple of artcles specifically about this event from reliable sources. I haven't looked at all the articles you mention above, but, as an example, the first two references on AIDS Vaccine 200 are articles in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Blade - you need something like that. I don't think advertising tone or references are the problem, only that the event isn't covered in depth anywhere except its own website - that's what lack of notability means and what the other editors are objecting to. (Also, as an aside, don't think of "you guys" - no one's in charge, it's just a bunch of individuals like you, who in good faith may or may not agree on any particular issue.) Station1 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry about the you guys part. thanks for the formatting. Looks like our Poor Media Relations (the guy responsible got posted last minute to Afghan and it fell through the cracks) is biting the event on the back side. The Event organizers will have to see if follow up articles in the local newspapers can be arranged. Its tough the first year, the organizers just want the facts avail for others to see. Before the event people saying they could not see it on Wikipedia which would not have worked, because it, the ride, had not happened yet. BTW how do you add references?? I press edit and get a Reflist... but no list.. whats the magic behind that?

Cheers --GankT19 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Station1 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Jones (poet)

On August 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Jones (poet), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edward Keonjian

An article that you have been involved in editing, Edward Keonjian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Keonjian. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Notedgrant (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Broad Street Historic District

Thanks for your note to my Talk page. I appreciate your explaining. I would be happy for there to be a discussion and review, inviting anyone you like, at Talk:Broad Street Historic District. However, I am the main person who has cleaned up NRHP dab pages. There is a Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup which i have gradually brought down to empty.

You may be concerned that I did not understand the basics of wp:MOSDAB but I assure you that i do. Pasting in from where i wrote this up elsewhere: Note, any NRHP place is documented and usually deemed wikipedia-notable. Note red-link NRHP entries are permitted by MOS:DABRL and should be retained, but red-link entries should be edited to include a blue-link to a relevant state-, county- or other list of NRHPs having the same red-link. MOS:DABRL explicitly allows red-links, but MOSDAB usually requires one blue-link for each red-link entry. See this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation. The past discussion was explicitly about how pages that include NRHP entries should be done. Also I posted a note again later with WikiProject Disambiguation, when another editor like yourself had questioned some dab pages, and what i have been doing was substantially confirmed.

There is room for improvement or differences of opinion in that dab page, including how the material is organized (by state vs. alphabetically), or whether it should be a combo dab page or split into several. But the main effect of your previous edit was to remove the red-link entries, which defeats the purpose of having the dab. This and other NRHP dabs are out there to "pre-disambiguate" article names, staying ahead of the NRHP article creation. Red-links for valid wikipedia article topics are allowed by MOSDAB, as long as there is a bluelink for each, "explaining" by showing another wikipedia article that presents the same red-link in an appropriate context. For these redlinks, each occurs also in an NRHP list-article. Technically, my linking to state-wide NRHP list-articles is not perfectly correct as the redlinks might appear in county or city sublists that have been split out from the state lists. So technically some of the bluelinks should be revised.

Anyhow do feel free to discuss there and to invite comments by posting notice at WikiProject Disambiguation or elsewhere. Thanks! doncram (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Depth Charge

Hello. I removed Depth Charge from WP:RM#Uncontroversial requests because it is the subject of a current open discussion. Station1 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was complete consensus for the move, and the bot wasn't working, so I figured it was easier to just move it to uncontroversial. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

US school redirects

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Glenn_High_School_(Westland,_Michigan)&oldid=321332513 1. Generally U.S. public school names should be redirected to the school district (which operates the school), not the municipality 2. Since high schools generally are notable, I will proceed to make an article about the school WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Colon - disambiguation hatnote

Hi there! I'm wondering why you removed the hatnote linking Colon to the corresponding dismbiguation page. As I see it, the hatnote was doing exactly what it's intended to do: if a reader wanted to know about the ":" punctuation mark it's reasonable that they would enter "colon" in the search box, which would take them to the intestinal article; the only means to get from there to the other colon-related articles is via the hatnote's link and the disambiguation page. I restored the hatlink for now, but I'd be happy to go with your change if you can enlighten me convincingly. Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the hatnote based on WP:NAMB. If someone landed on the intestinal article based on typing colon into the search box I would agree with you, but they land on the dab page instead. The hatnote isn't necessary if the article title isn't ambiguous, as colon (anatomy), because the reader wouldn't be there if they were looking for another use of "colon". If colon redirected to colon (anatomy) it would be a different story. The hatnote doesn't really hurt; it's just not needed. Station1 (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I must have been having a senior moment when I imagined that the intestinal article was entitled plain colon rather than colon (anatomy). I offer you my thanks for both the original correction (which I've reinstated) and your subsequent kind explanation; and my apologies for misunderstanding. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem - and no apologies required. Station1 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Turkish films

Thanks I did not realize that there were separate articles on Turkish films listed by name as well as date. These should all be merged into one list (or if that is prohibitive, two) and sorted together using a table. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again A merge makes the most sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

your edit in contradiction to MOSDAB

Your edit, with edit summary asserting "per MOSDAB", was not that. I reverted. Could we please discuss? I went through several very long discussions about how pages involving NRHP disambiguation should be constructed, and believe this basically complies. If you wish to revisit the previous consensus of numerous disambiguation editors, please explain. --doncram (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have discussed this before, but I will reply on your talk page shortly. Station1 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, or here (I'll watch). But perhaps to cut unnecessary discussion short, i am referring tin part to [[See this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation and this followup. Perhaps you could review those. There have been other followups, too. You may make the point that a given entry includes a link to a state-wide NRHP list, when in fact it should better point to a county-specific NRHP list, in order to best comply with MOS:DABRL, but then wp:SOFIXIT will apply. I do believe you mean well but I also believe that revisiting all this, reasonably well settled already, is not likely to be hugely helpful. Regards, --doncram (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bo

Thanks for processing my requested move for Bo (tribe). Smappy (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Errrrr?

(Move log); 19:55 . . Station1 (Talk | contribs) moved Concordia University to Concordia University (disambiguation) over redirect (pending Talk:Concordia University#Move?)

• If you were "pending Talk:Concordia University#Move?", you would have waited until after the discussion was resolved before making the move.
• I was under the impression that it was "rather bad form" to pre-empt the result of the discussion during the course of the discussion.
• But no doubt you have your reasons. It just seems to me a rather strange thing to do.
• Ho hum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(diff) (hist) . . Concordia University‎; 19:57 . . (-6) . . Station1 (Talk | contribs) (many broken links; rd pending discussion at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move?) [rollback]

• There are NO broken links - unless your definition of "broken" is different to mine.
• Given that I have spent a lot of time recently making links point to the relevant page, with your move there are now even more links pointing to wrong pages.
• Ho hum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. It was not my intention to pre-empt the discussion of whether Concordia University should be at Concordia University (Montreal); my changes are easily reversible if consensus turns out to be to keep the qualifier. I was trying to put things back to the status quo ante pending discussion of reverting the move because I checked incoming links to Concordia University and noticed many links that were intended to point to the Montreal institution were instead pointing to the disambiguation page (my definition of broken). I'll respond more fully on the article talk page shortly and list some of them. I appreciate your fixing any links that were not intended for the Montreal CU, but don't understand how what I did would make them point to the wrong page. I do now notice you put "which?" tags on some, but the ones I see certainly or almost certainly intended the Montreal CU, so if you're saying you meant them to point to the dab page, I respectfully suggest my change did not point them to the wrong page but rather to where they should be pointing in most cases. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jolly good. As I said, I expected you had your reasons. And yes, it seems we do have different definitions of "broken". And yes, on rethinking the situation, I agree that your change did not have an effect on on my changes. I probably don't agree with the "rather to where they should be pointing in most cases" statement, but I don't think it's a significant enough issue to get "hot and bothered" about. I'm still not too keen on your move, but I largely agree with your assessment of that situation. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. FYI, I've had some more thoughts. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with Antonia Malatesta of Cesena. I am a newbie -- that was my 2nd page. Aloha! Peaceray (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Peaceray

Hello Station1

Hello Station1, Rehman has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Over the Hills and Far Away

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Over the Hills and Far Away (song). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Island

Recently have done a re-working of Ellis Island, and also made it a class-C instead of class-B article due to the lack of inline references. I plan to continue working on that. But having noticed your overhaul on grammar, wording, punc, links on Liberty State Park, wonder if you could fine-tooth language on this article? Much appreciated.Djflem (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look as soon as I have time. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

otheruses4 -> about

Please do not use {{otheruses4}}. It redirects to {{about}}.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topic_after_first_primary_topic.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

articles like Sutton House

By "articles like Sutton House" i meant dab pages where I created a new dab page at the location of a long-used or otherwise somewhat high readership page. Sutton House had 30 or so hits per day, like a thousand or two per month. There is more of an issue there, than for cases where there was no page at all but just several NRHP list-articles with redlink pointing to one place, and i created a dab there.

About other articles where there is "NRHP dab needing cleanup", yes i am aware of those and actively fixing them. I don't believe there are any where readers/editors are inconvenienced.

What one or two do you consider similar? --doncram (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hull House (disambiguation), Stuart House, Main Building, Union Pacific Railroad Depot, Veterans Administration Hospital, Warehouse District. Station1 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hull House (disambiguation), new dab page in March, no prior history, no articles moved to make way for it, little traffic (perhaps just me and dab editors)

Stuart House: created a month ago, no prior history whatsoever, no move/rename, little traffic.

Main Building: no harm done, some help by info in text at bottom of page. Your complaint is about formatting, and here it is at bottom, not in the way. Little traffic except me and people following my edits on March 31 and April 3. No move/rename of article.

Warehouse District: Same as Main Building including no move/rename

Union Pacific Railroad Depot, new dab at place of a redirect set up /intended by previous editor to serve for a disambiguation page eventually. No move.

Veterans Administration Hospital. New dab, no articles moved, little traffic.

You're just naming random ones in the NRHP dab cleanup needed category? Which you known i am actively cleaning up. And, it's better to have these in place, already, in non-cleaned up form. Creating these and others has served need of fixing conflicts in article names. So, I don't think any of these are like the Sutton House one in the principal ways which i meant, and i thot i explained myself well enough to be understood.

Bottom-line: what would you suggest about these dab pages? Not that they be deleted or anything. Not that the NRHP entries should be deleted off them. Just that formatting of those entries should be cleaned up? Which would be indicated by adding a cleanup tag. Which, is, in, place. --doncram (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not random. They are like Sutton House in that they are drafts in mainspace. They don't belong there. Station1 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I believe that you do believe that. I am sorry you seem distressed that they have existed in rough form for some time. I personally think that readers and editors have been better served by having them, in lieu of lack of information or contradicting information in Wikipedia. As you may or may not know, it is usually not trivial to fix up any one of these all the way, as it involves many lookups and then forays off to fix other articles, where inter-linking is not working as it should. You're randomly selecting from the last 30 in the cleanup subcategory, out of 3,000 dab pages tagged by NRHP. These last ones might be even more thorny and non-standard; since my last push to create the several hundred missing/needed NRHP dab pages in March, i have certainly tried to clear the easiest ones already. --doncram (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Followup: I cleaned up those 5. It leaves 23 currently in the NRHP dabs needing cleanup category. For several weeks since, per my announcement at WikiProject Disambiguation Talk page, i created several hundred missing/needed NRHP disambiguation pages, i have been cleaning up about 20 per day on average. The remaining ones may have thornier issues than average tho, and there's other stuff going on, so it will take me more than a couple days to finish these probably, but not more than a week or so, i expect. By the way, I have seen no complaint by disambiguation editors who frequent WikiProject Disambiguation about my use of the NRHP dab cleanup tag. Various recent edits i have interpreted as indicating general support of the NRHP dab cleanup tag. The tag has had fairly long use now, and was successful in bringing to a stop the occasional rapid deletion nomination of NRHP dab articles a long time ago. I recall another editor or two pointing out to a deletion-nominator, "read the stupid tag", basically. I appreciate you are not at that point, you are not proposing that these do not serve a need; your complaint as far as i understand it is that these ones were not immediately formatted as you wish / as best complies with MOS:DAB. The cleanup tag conveyed that adequately i thot, but i hear your difference of opinion. If you were actually creating this disambiguation, I think you could well choose to operate as i did, but you can have your different opinion. At this point it is nearly moot, about these last-to-be-cleaned ones. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Casino Theatre

Actually I hadn't planned to, mostly as it seemed out of my comfort zone. I do try to score some fixes on The Daily Disambig occasionally, in cases where i know that my fixes would be correct, but in this theatre area it might be better for more knowledgeable editors to fix the ambiguous articles. Looking at a few, I don't know which theatre the articles are referring to. Another consideration is that some could argue with my move and assert the demolished New York one is primaryusage. Not sure what is least disruptive to do now. Do you agree with the move? Also, by the way, do you know if there is yet a tool like dispenser's one for clearing many dab-links off one page, that addresses this problem of incoming dab-links? --doncram (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case I can see it either way. I probably would have left the NY theater at the basic name as the primary topic, but it's just barely primary, especially with the new article you created, so a dab is not unreasonable. As to the links, since the article was stable at the name for a while, it's a fairly safe bet most of the links were good and could just be changed. Most would be fairly obvious anyway, such as the "19xx in music", "Broadway theatre", etc. If there were any that you weren't sure about you could just leave those. Sorry, but I don't know what kind of tool you're referring to - I do most everything manually. Station1 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave a link for dispenser's tool at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 39#updates on nrhp dabs. If you can use Firefox or other non-MSIE browser, it is really great! For identifying each ambiguous link in a given page, and allowing u to select from dab page choices for each link needing fixing, then fixing it for you. --doncram (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some reducing of "what links here" for Casino Theatre. Some items give me pause, like the current link from Show Boat which says the show was at the Casino in 1932, which is 2 years after Casino was demolished, according to the Casino article.

Also, based on some other theatre names like Imperial Theatre (Broadway), i wonder if a better name for the "Casino Theatre (New York, New York)" one is "Casino Theatre (Broadway)". If u feel like moving it that is fine by me. I don't feel familiar enough with this area.

Here is a prepared link for you to try dispenser's tool: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=1918_in_music. That is the dab solver tool applied to the 1918 in music article. Note that it highlights in red about 5 different items in the article, mostly theatres and including the Casino Theatre link, which are the ambiguous links. You can click on a red one and it will offer u the alternatives given at the corresponding dab page. Select one option for each one. When done u select "Show preview" or "Show changes" below (I prefer to select the latter), and then, if u are using firefox as browser you can save the page with those changes. It's very efficient! If u are using MS Internet Explorer you can't directly save the prepared page, but you can copy-paste the whole page and use that to implement the change more manually, maybe in a different browser window. I'm deliberately leaving the "1918 in music" article with the ambiguous links in place, so that you get a meaningful trial of this. Hope you like it! --doncram (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Hmm, in this diff i see another editor, Ulric, just did the dab resolution for the Casino Theatre link in that article, but the other links will still show up for fixing. Hey, Ulric, u watching me or here?  :) --doncram (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to fix the links. Show Boat was indeed a real mystery until I found this - apparently there was another Casino Theater after 1930, at 7th Av & 50th St., so I just delinked it at Show Boat and at 1932 in music. What I just realized I didn't mention before is that one benefit of staring a dab page at "(disambiguation)" rather than the basic title is that you don't have to worry about incoming links - sometimes that's a major factor, sometimes not at all, and sometimes like here, in between. I think you're right about using "(Broadway)" as a better qualifier. Most of them at Category:Broadway theatres seem to use that or just "(New York)". "New York, New York" is rarely used anywhere on WP. Both city and state are not necessarily required in a qualifier if it's not needed to disambiguate, especially for major cities. Thanks also for pointing out that tool - it looks interesting, I'll try and play with it a little if I have some time. I'll come back to Casino Theatre in a couple of days and try to fix any links that remain then. Station1 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good you found that link. Then, that is the Earl Carroll Theatre, whose article is a combo article about two of that name, the one also/later known as Casino Theatre and another in California. Yikes. I added an entry, which i am pretty sure is not formatted correctly, at the Casino Theatre disambiguation page. By its location, this 2nd Casino Theatre in NYC is also on Broadway. So i don't know whether the names for the two should become "Casino Theatre (Broadway, 1894-1930)" and "Casino Theatre (Broadway, after 1930)" or what. There must be other Broadway theatres that moved. I will be very glad if you'll be able to sort it out when you have time. Hey, there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre which maybe could advise or help. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Great find on Earl Carroll Theatre! I've updated the links at Show Boat and 1932 in music. I'll fix up the Casino Theatre dab page - I agree it certainly deserves an entry there. We don't have to worry about the qualifiers because they are already 'naturally' disambiguated, one at Casino Theatre (Broadway) and one at Earl Carroll Theatre. All we have to do is add a hatnote to the former in case someone like us comes along and doesn't realize there's a later one using the same name. (Speaking purely hypothetically, if it was necessary to use qualifiers because we had no other choice, I would probably put one at "Casino Theatre (Broadway, 1894)" and the other at "Casino Theatre (Broadway, 1932)".) Broadway theaters can be very confusing because many have gone through several names over their long lives and names are also reused for other theaters like in this case. Station1 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note Talk:Shelby_House#Requested move 2  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

your edits redirecting disambiguation pages

I notice you have replaced a couple disambiguation pages with redirects, including this edit and this edit this edit. What's going on?

If this is some way to communicate something, regarding past disagreement about NRHP disambiguation, I wish you would please be more direct and state your issues. As you know, there is an open discussion section about NRHP disambiguation at the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page. Please do open something there. I do not believe it is appropriate for you to try to make some point by deleting valid work done. Please explain. --doncram (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not all about you. I was editing Ben Young, which led me to Benjamin Young House while searching for any possible Benjamin Young. As I (and many others) have explained, you can not have redlinks that lead nowhere, and it is not necessary to have a dab page at a title when there is only one article using that title. I've told you before that I fix those when I see them. Station1 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder if you were just browsing NRHP-related disambiguation pages. Glad, i guess, to hear you say you are not doing that. And looking at another edit of yours, on the Commonweatlh disambiguation page that, i see you are also stripping out items there. I disagree with your edits there too. It seems unhelpful to delete mention of ships and books titled Commonwealth off of that. It seems perhaps wp:POINTY, i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, for you to delete items that displease you in some formatting or other minor way, rather than fixing those items. And specifically, in both of the pages Benjamin Young House and John Young House which i mentioned above, there are multiple valid wikipedia topics of that name, which need disambiguation. You can't just announce your personal policy that "it is not necessary to have a dab page...when there is only one article using that title". That's not Wikipedia policy. Do you not understand that redlink entries on disambiguation pages can be okay, completely within disambiguation guidelines? Actually i know that you do know that from previous discussions, but maybe you want to buck the trend? So, I guess i would like to know, do you accept MOS:DABRL or not? And, if you do accept that, is there some other point you wish to make? --doncram (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. It happens I wasn't browsing this time, but there would be absolutely nothing wrong if I were. 2. Of course it would be "unhelpful to delete mention of ships and books titled Commonwealth" from the Commonwealth dab page; that's why I didn't do that! 3. I resent your accusation of being pointy. It's better to get readers directly to where they want to go via a redirect rather than to a dab page with only one valid entry and several dead ends. Redlink entries can never "be okay, completely within disambiguation guidelines" unless they have an accompanying bluelink leading to info about the topic. 4. Since you asked, I noticed Young House is a mess. I will make a 'point' of cleaning that up shortly unless you want to. Station1 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if u followed me to the dab page now at Masonic Temple (requested move pending), but perhaps you were unaware of my interactions at several pages with an editor there who seems to be coming conversant with dab policy and practices just now. I hope you don't mind i reverted your edits, which seemed unhelpful and/or confusing in the context. About whether organizing by country and then ordering by state within the U.S., and having the ordering be fairly clear by section headers, you must know that is pretty normal practice. With this editor it is under discussion at the Talk page though; you could clarify there if you seriously have a different view of what is normal, of what this editor should learn. Perhaps your focus is on a different aspect, but having section titles for countries is explicitly under discussion there so i don't want those deleted willy-nilly.

About Young House, I expect you could improve the formatting there and I would welcome your helping to refine the supporting bluelinks in any redlink items. I hope you won't do a whole lot in a big edit that also simply deletes valid redlinks, though.

About Commonwealth disambiguation items, i obviously didn't see in your big edit that you had moved rather than deleted those items. Sorry about that. Since some other editors have reviewed it and edited there, too, i don't have any complaint. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

imo, Blueboar's edits at Masonic Temple are much more consistent with MOS:DAB than yours. He doesn't seem confused at all. Sections are not needed for only one or two entries. Re Young House, as I said to you before, useless redlinks should be deleted. If you want to refine them, go ahead, since there's no sense wasting each other's time, but it's obvious you don't like the way I edit. Station1 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to generalize about Blueboar's edits there and at related pages, there are too many to characterize. Some were/are good, some were not consistent with practices and policies. I don't want to generalize negatively about your edits either; you clearly do make good contributions.

I do object, strenuously, to your simply removing redlink items if you detect an imperfection in a supporting bluelink, rather than fixing the imperfection. For NRHP items, fixing sometimes is easy by use of the "What links here"; sometimes it involves going to a county list article and identifying some minor capitalization or spacing or hyphenation difference, in order to make the connection work. That's really the main issue i have had, in previous disagreements and now. Above you stated "It's better to get readers directly to where they want to go via a redirect rather than to a dab page with only one valid entry and several dead ends." I appreciate that your concern is for readers. But if the dead ends you refer to are NRHP entry items, you should know that they can and should be fixed, instead. Readers looking for NRHP places want to find the one they are looking for, even if it is just to learn that Wikipedia currently has no article for it, rather than being redirected somewhere else. My belief about readers is that they are arriving in roughly equal numbers looking for each NRHP item, and my belief about NRHP articles is that it is pretty random so far which ones have articles. The redlink items are just as important as regular bluelink items. My concern is for readers, too. If you don't want to refine the redlink NRHP items, then please just leave them alone! :) --doncram (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We've been through all this before, more than once I think, so no point rehashing it yet again. We obviously disagree, and frankly I don't know how to resolve that, but no, I will not leave pages alone just because you don't like the way other editors edit. Station1 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do accept and appreciate many/most edits i've seen you make on dab pages that i watch. Where we actually disagree may be only about what is appropriate to do, when a supporting bluelink for an NRHP item is imperfect. I wonder if we could sort out something to address even those cases. I wonder, for example, if you were to be editing a dab page like Young House, if you could directly fix the easier-to-fix ones, and mark the others with a hidden comment for me to check and fix. Meaning, if you would replace an imperfect link to "List of RHPs in STATE" by a precise link, usually in the form of "National Register of Historic Places listings in COUNTY County, STATE", where the precise link can be found by clicking on the redlink and then "What links here". Usually the precise link can be found that way. In maybe 10% of cases, as when there is a capitalization or hyphenation difference, the corresponding NRHP list-article does not show up in the "What links here". For those ones, if you would mark them by a hidden comment, say <!--- NRHP FIXME --->, and mark the article with {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}}, i would be informed and would come by and fix those. I wonder if that division of work would allow us to work cooperatively on even this area of our past disagreement. --doncram (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As discussed on your talk page and elsewhere, we disagree about a number of other things including ordering, partial title matches, excess descriptions, etc., but I agree bad bluelinks like at Young House are probably the biggest problem. As I told you before, I think in many cases it's preferable to delete those entries rather than 'refining' them, so that's what I do, although refining them is better than nothing if you want to do that. I would be willing to comment out those entries instead of deleting, but not adding a visible tag. Station1 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a visible tag; i was suggesting an invisible comment. But actually i thot about it and a tag on each line is not needed. If you edited Young House to refine the majority of its items, leaving only thorny cases where clicking on the redlink does not yield a NRHP list-article, and then marked the article for NRHP dab cleanup, then i would check and fix the corresponding NRHP list-articles to match. That does add some value, ensuring that both dab and list-article give the same name. Otherwise, maybe it is best to leave the dab page entries be, and let the NRHP articles be created over time, in which case your main objections to the dab page goes away. It would seem unhelpful for you to delete or comment out entries (which IMO amounts to the same thing); I would feel entirely justified in reverting your edits including, unfortunately, anything else valid you were doing that was mixed in. And I don't want to keep testing it and asking other editors in, but I believe that consensus is with me, that reverting such edits is appropriate and supported by other editors. We have gone down that path before and it does seem very demoralizing and unproductive to engage in all that. And, yes, I guess we do disagree about more aspects of formatting although I thot those were less important. It is your choice or not to engage in the more limited fixing up of entries, with my cooperation on the thornier ones that often require editing elsewhere. I guess that's all i can come up with right now, in terms of suggesting a compromise which addresses some of the previous disagreement. --doncram (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

what's up now

Hey Station1 -- I reverted your edits to the Masonic Temple Building disambiguation page and I commented strongly against your opinion in the AFD on Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) just now. I also called for other editors at WikiProject Disambiguation to comment in the AFD. What's going on? You are an experienced dab editor and you know the policies/guidelines and practices. About the edit deleting entries in the Masonic Temple Building page, you were just recently over-ruled in your doing the same in 2 other pages, by multiple WikiProject Disambiguation editors. It's okay by me that you disagree with me often in some areas that are matters of subjective judgement, but in these 2 cases you are making assertions that are just wrong by policy and confusing to less-informed editors. Really you know better, don't you? --doncram (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For same reasons i revert your edit at Temple Theater and also your edit at Masonic Temple Building. You know the NRHP-listed items are valid disambiguation entries. It is wp:POINTY disruptive of wikipedia for you to make some point about formatting, unexpressed. --doncram (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying I know the policies/guidelines and practices. These were all good edits and I'm putting them back. As I and others have explained many times, MOS:DAB recommends redlink entries have a corresponding bluelink that mentions the topic. Also there should be only one bluelink per entry and no partial title matches. As to the AfD, I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion but that's exactly what AfDs are for; it's since been withdrawn anyway. Station1 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The AFD being withdrawn suggests your opinion was wrong / not accepted, as i believe also should be applied to your related other 3 edits. I reverted again ur reimposition of 2 of them. About the supporting bluelinks, please fix them to your satisfaction ( wp:SOFIXIT ) or allow time to go by so that the NRHP articles are created. All NY and CT ones are likely to be created soon; all could be created at any moment if anyone wants to run a bot using the National Register's NRIS database info to do so. --doncram (talk)

Sometimes a withdrawal is just a withdrawal. Station1 (talk) 05:45, 16 June 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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Station1. You have new messages at Talk:Indian Institutes of Technology.
Message added 08:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arjun^codename024 08:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

redlinks vs. bluelinks

I noticed and reverted this edit by you to the Ward House disambiguation page. Your elevating three bluelink entries, leaving same-named redlink ones below, seems to be a replay of sorts. There is settled consensus about this. I am guessing that you believe, as have some others, that the existence of a bluelink article for an NRHP entry is some indication that it is more important / more likely to be sought, than a redlink NRHP entry. I assure you that is not the case. The Syracuse bluelink entry is blue because a local NRHP editor and I developed articles for all the Syracuse area NRHP listings; the same-named Ohio or Indiana one just doesn't have a local editor currently involved. Just like all Florida, all Massachusetts, and all Maryland NRHP entries have been created, but very few in some other states. It is random where local wikipedians have joined up and created these articles. This has all been discussed before, in archives of Disambiguation wikiproject. --doncram (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you are guessing wrong. I understand and partially agree with your point about some articles being created before others and that's not why I think one is more important. (It happens that the Seattle Ward House is arguably the most important in this case, and it's not entirely unnatural that more important articles are often created before less important ones, as this one was created by a regular editor years ago, but that's largely irrelevant to the edit you're concerned about.) We agree that there is consensus about ordering a dab page, but you appear to think it's the opposite of what I think. MOS:DAB suggests that articles that use the same title as the dab page come first. This is entirely logical because someone searching for or linking to Ward House is much more likely to want an article titled Ward House (somewhere) than an article that kinda sorta partially sounds a little like Ward House. It also suggests putting articles ahead of entries that merely point to sections of other articles. In summary, someone landing on Ward House is more likely to want the three I put on top. I thought I would do that rather than just delete the numerous partial title matches that don't belong on the page at all. If you would like to add the redlink entries that are actually Ward House (somewhere) to the top after the three real articles, I don't object. Station1 (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, at least we're talking. But what if one of the others is more interesting/likely to be searched for than others? For example, the William E. Ward House is perhaps the first reinforced concrete structure in the United States, and it could perhaps be mentioned in architecture/engineering books that bring readers to wikipedia to look for more about it. The ones listed here as simply "Ward House (City, State)" are at all not necessarily the most sought. Many of the ones listed as "Firstname Ward House" are probably also be known as "Ward House" and many of those may be more sought as "Ward House" than others listed here as just "Ward House". I don't think we're in a position to evaluate the relative importance of these. So, I think providing an unbroken lookup list by state then city is a good way to present the list. Moving up a few to a separate section can't really be supported on most likely to be sought grounds, and would lose the simple-to-explain and simple-to-use qualities of the current list for readers. Another benefit of having one list by geography is that it puts related houses in the same town together, e.g. Ephraim Ward House, of Newton, Massachusetts and John Ward House (Newton, Massachusetts). In this case separating the "Ward House (City, State)" nes might not bust up any such useful pairings, but in other dabs having NRHP-listed houses I know that useful pairings would be busted up by similar edits. And that would be unfortunate, as it is likely random which one in a pair got the simpler NRHP listing name, just because its paperwork got through first, while the second one required a Firstname to be added to avoid duplication in the NRHP register. Someone looking for one of them would want to find them together in order to identify which one is the one they want. It would make for complicated guidelines to editors to use split lists in house dab pages where splits are less unfortunate, and use simple geo lists where split lists would be more unfortunate, etc.; in fact i am sure that is not worth going into. So, overall i see some harm for readers and no really defensible benefit, by changing the order from simple geographic order (which is allowable by MOSDAB and/or consensus of disambiguation editors). --doncram (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At the time I edited Ward House, William E. Ward House was just a redlink. As you may know, the excellent article was created a few hours later. And yes, now that it exists, and there is at least one reliable source that refers to it as Ward House (although Ward's Castle and even Museum of Cartoon Art might be more common), and it is probably the most important (I suspect you may realize it's a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark and that is how I stumbled upon Ward House in the first place), if I were editing Ward House now I would put it near the top. That's because we have verifiable facts that it's sometimes called Ward House, not because of speculation and conjecture that something not called Ward House "could perhaps be" or "are probably also known as" Ward House. You may believe geographical order "is a good way to present the list" but this is simply not the consensus either at MOS:DAB or general use. As I said, the benefit to readers is finding the article they are looking for quickly and easily; someone landing on Ward House most likely wants something actually called Ward House. By making them wade through the mess that is currently Ward House to find it, that is the harm. Station1 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no i did not realize it was new or that you came to Ward House dab via this route. I happened across it because i am working on a drive to create/develop articles for Fairfield County, Connecticut NRHP-listed places, and repeatedly browsing National Register of Historic Places listings in Fairfield County, Connecticut, where it appears. This is actually an odd one, that in a geo-based list should appear in both NY and CT sections.

I agree that having sources showing a place is called by the shorter name is nice when u have it. But experience shows that long-named places get called by shorter names, and that some/many of the NRHP redlink ones will be shown to have the short name explicitly as a sourced alternative when their articles are created (at least if created by me; i take care to report the alternative names given in the NRIS system). All Firstname Ward House ones could reasonably be called Ward House, anyhow though, by some local publication not immediately at our fingertips. The reasonable thing to do is to make them all available in a list. It is fast for anyone to do a lookup by geography, which I strongly believe most arriving readers will have an inkling about. No one looks for a Ward House in the United States without knowing what state it is in (exception being a place on a border). And it is not even allowable in dab pages to include references arguing back and forth whether a place is given a certain alternative name or not. It hurts readers to make the list less easily searched by setting up a 2 list system instead, which will obscure local common pairings too. Geo-organized dabs were accepted by consensus of all but you, i believe, previously. May or may not have gotten all the way into MOSDAB, I am not sure, but if it's not in there then that is due only to your opposition in the discussion. It was my understanding that the consensus of the discussion was that geo-organized is fine (though consensus may have been subverted in the implementation); and geo-organized has good properties. Making readers figure out a different-than-simple and easy-to-use system, with no good idea which are more likely to be sought guiding your choices, is the harm. --doncram (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

edit conflicts at List of Masonic Buildings

Sorry to not reply sooner... yeah, we did have a brief edit conflict. No problem. As you can see on the talk page, I have a major issue with the citation used on most of the entries on the list (first, it points to a search engine instead of actual information, and second that search engine no longer works... which means the citation is no longer reliable) ... so I am replacing them with citations that point to a page that links directly to the NRHP pages on the individual properties, one that is reliable per a discussion we had at WP:RSN. Unfortunately, formatting these citations is complicated, so I was a bit preoccupied at the time of our edit conflict. In any case, I am done for a while... so if you need to make edits to the article, you can now do so without conflicting with mine. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Army or Navy?

No, you are correct; after 1862 it was part of the Navy. I mistakenly changed it after an obvious period of confusion. Thanks and appreciated you reviewing it.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sturgeon River - Is it a set index article?

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_30#Black_River.2C_Ontario_.28disambiguation.29. To cement my understanding of what constitutes a set index article, I think Sturgeon River may be a set index article as well, and not a disambiguation page. Do I have that right? If so, I will remove the {{geodis}} template and add {{SIA}}. However, I'm not certain about Sturgeon Lake, as it has lakes, a city and a caldera; I think not. Would appreciate any advice. --papageno (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, both Sturgeon Lake and Sturgeon River are disambiguation pages. They are both disambiguating among article titles that cover individual topics, each of which by themselves would bear that title if the others didn't exist. For example, Sturgeon River (Marchington River) would be titled simply Sturgeon River if not for the fact that Sturgeon River (Lake Nipissing) and other articles also exist. Since they can't all be titled Sturgeon River, the parenthetical disambiguator is added to each article and then they are all linked from the disambiguation page so the reader searching for "Sturgeon River (Ontario)" can easily find the particular article(s) they are looking for. There is minimal information on the dab page itself; it's merely a directory to other articles. The difference with Black River (Ontario) is that there are no individual articles for each of the half dozen rivers, so there is nothing else to link to, nowhere else to go. All the information about all the rivers is in that one article, much more than would be on a typical dab page. That's what makes it a "set index" article. Hope this helps. Station1 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, by comparison, that Sturgeon River (Michigan) is a set index. bd2412 T 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia buildings article format

Hi, I reverted your article renames of Jones Chapel (New York City) and Middle Dutch Church (New York City). Please do not move these articles without some warning and discussion. For buildings that have generic names that can or do reappear as other wiki articles, location is given to specify the article. For most buildings and churches in the U.S., this is given in (), for those in the UK, location is separated by a comma. Also in building info boxes, if the information is unknown, it should remain blank so that the label does not appear. A question mark implies the information has been researched but remains unknown.?— James R ^talk

Hello. Now that I know there is objection to moving these articles, I will certainly not move them again without further discussion, perhaps via a move request at WP:RM in a day or two. I respectfully disagree, though, that these titles should have parenthetical disambiguation. Qualifiers are normally used to disambiguate two articles on WP that would otherwise have the same name, which is not the case here. Guidelines at WP:PRECISION suggest article titles be as precise as necessary, but not more precise. This makes it easy for people to search for or link to an article title. Where a redirect goes to an article with a longer name, the redirect is almost always reversed. I doubt there will be a WP article about another Jones Chapel or Middle Dutch Church anytime soon, if ever, but if and when there is, and if these churches are then not primary topics, then the current disambiguated names would be appropriate. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the second part of your message about the infobox -- "if the information is unknown, it should remain blank so that the label does not appear" -- I completely agree. I thought that's exactly what I did, so I'm a little confused. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your reasoning but with all respect I will have to ask you to keep these titles site specific. A Google search has revealed a number of Jones Chapels. There is even a Jones Chapel, Alabama, complete with several churches. I assure you from my own research not published to Wikipedia that variations of Dutch Church, including the name Middle Dutch Church, occur around the world. ?— James R ^{talk 22.40, 14 August 2010 (GMT)}

Then I think that Jones Chapel and Middle Dutch Church should be set up as "redirects with possibilities", per info at Category:Redirects with possibilities, redirecting to the more specific topics for now, but ready to be converted to regular dab pages when more topics of those names get wikipedia articles. Hope u don't mind my commenting here. --doncram (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind your commenting, but "redirects with possibilities" are intended for redirects to sections of existing articles that with expansion might potentially be split off to become stand-alone articles at the title of the redirect. For example "Main Street Historic District (Anytown, Illinois)" might redirect to a section headed "Main Street Historic District" in the article "Anytown, Illinois". That section might grow someday to be an article on its own with the title "Main Street Historic District (Anytown, Illinois)". For that reason they are intended to be linked to directly. It doesn't apply to cases like this where the redirect just points to a complete article with a similar but pre-disambiguated name. In these cases, you don't want links to the redirect, which could theorectically eventually become a dab page. It's almost the opposite of a redirect with possibilities in that sense. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i stand corrected. I have not much run into Redirects with Possibilties, and I misunderstood. I still agree with James Russiello that the two articles should be allowed to exist at fully disambiguated names, though. For that to survive, though, i guess disambiguation pages at the main names need to be created, with at least one other entry for each. The entries could be redlinks though, as long as they are compliant with MOS:DABRL. James, if you identify one other specific place of each name, I would be glad to help get those dab pages into shape. --doncram (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't have a dab page with only one entry and a redlink. You could have a dab page with two entries if neither is the primary topic, which could be the case with Jones Chapel but is unlikely to be the case with Middle Dutch Church, which is relatively important in New York City history. Anyway, this is not a big deal so I wouldn't worry about it. Station1 (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

compromise

JHunterJ at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Random attacks on NRHP disambiguation suggests that you and i work out a compromise. It seems to me that would be best done as a side discussion, with us reporting back wheether or not we can agree on anything. I'd be happy to discuss that here. I've already several times suggested a split that I thought could work. Can you make some kind of offer? --doncram (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already replied to your "split" suggestion more than once, and others have also told you why it's unreasonable, but if you have some other ideas I'm willing to listen. Station1 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please remind me how you replied. Honestly I don't recall, i thought you simply did not reply, or if you did it was only after long delay and you just said that no you plan to delete NRHP redlink entries. Honestly i don't recall any suggestion. So, since i made the suggestion of splitting work one way, and I think you've rejected that, I do think it would would be fair for you to make some suggestion. I think it would be more likely to work. Please do make a suggestion. Please let's try to work something out. What do you want?

If you really mean that you want me to make an offer, honestly i think that an offer where you agree to address the easy fixes and leave the harder fixes to me, is a good one. That leaves me the responsibility of conforming the NRHP list-article's place mention to the place mention in the dab. That leaves you simply checking redlinks, in a monitoring, not-very-demanding-upon-you way, allowing you to work at your own pace. You just need to call my attention to the remaining problems, which can be done by your just adding a tag to the dab, the "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag, which I would understand and respond to. That would be a low-maintenance easy way of coordinating. --doncram (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Check above at #your edits redirecting disambiguation pages and at your talk page. I think there was a detailed account of my thinking at Broad Street Historic District last September, and/or maybe at Main Street Historic District or somewhere else on your page later - wherever you first brought it up - I don't remember precisely. JHunterJ (I think, or someone) explained why it's unreasonable on one of the WP dab talk pages. It's not a question of work. It's that I think WP is better without these entries. I understand you think otherwise, so I don't delete entries that mention the topic, I only delete dead ends. If you want to fix them, go ahead. But please don't tell me I should do something that I think makes WP worse - I only want to make it better. And please don't revert me without fixing the links. Station1 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to that discussion section above. It was as i recalled: i was spelling out a proposal in more detail in my last comment, explaining how it was simpler than it might have seemed, and you just didn't ever respond. You had previously in the discussion asserted that simply deleting the entries was justified and best in your view. So, your not responding then and your comments now, seem to add up to your saying what? I don't want to put words in your mouth. But are you saying there is no possible compromise? If not, please suggest something. Honestly seeking to clarify... --doncram (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an insult, but it's very frustrating trying to talk to you. I said above "As I told you before, I think in many cases it's preferable to delete those entries rather than 'refining' them, so that's what I do, although refining them is better than nothing if you want to do that. I would be willing to comment out those entries instead of deleting, but not adding a visible tag." I don't know how to be clearer or what further reply could help. Did you check our original discussion on your talk page last September? I also just suggested "If you want to fix them, go ahead" but "please don't revert me without fixing the links". I don't know what more you want. Station1 (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

About what was previously discussed at my Talk page, i've scanned back through a copule archives, find link over to where I also remade the offer, in bold, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 22#Masonic Temple Building. You there repeated your offer to comment out the entries instead of deleting them. I replied why that would not be adequate. After some misunderstanding, JHunterJ eventually agreed about the utility/necessity of having the NRHP items in place in the dab pages, so that process of article title conflict clearing could continue in the NRHP list-articles. You did not reply further than your brief statement, before a lot of the discussion happened there. There may be some other discussion elsewhere, but I doubt that it was different. So I think we have found enough prior discussion to re-establish the status of prior discussions, right? The only offer you have made is to comment out the entries instead of deleting them, right? Please see the Archive22 discussion again and please also state your view, if you don't fully understand why that is unsatisfactory, for its effects upon readers interested in these places and for its effects upon the NRHP wikiproject's efforts to develop articles. Since this has been discussed several times, I will believe, unless you clarify now, that you do fully understand, but you just don't care about the effects upon readers and upon other editors' efforts. The deletions entirely undermine the goals of both WikiProject Disambiguation and WikiProject NRHP to build articles and to build useful disambiguation that gets readers to them.

What I want is for you to agree not to remove them either way, when you come across them, but rather for you to participate in some cooperative editing process, or for you to simply cease while others engage in a cooperative campaign. A cooperative process could involve you picking which dab pages to address (like you have been doing), and then also involving notification to other editors rather than your making deletion edits that are unnoticed. And involving cleanup edits by several editors. A cooperative campaign not much involving you would likely march through them alphabetically, instead. Either way you would have to agree not to make the deletions. If you want you could make some limited or conditional offer, like you agree not to make any such deletions for six months or some other period of time, or as long as a cooperative campaign by others is proceeding fast enough by some measure. If you wanted some terms like that, I would at least try to see if other editors would agree to a cooperative campaign meeting your terms along those lines. Depending on your terms, I would possibly argue that they unreasonable however. Certainly there must be some terms that you would agree to. Like if there magically were a dozen editors working full-time to fix the problems you perceive, you would agree to stop with deletions while they worked, right? --doncram (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I resent your saying I do not care about readers. You do not seem to understand that I fully understand your arguments but I disagree with them. I am not interested in making any other editors do anything, including you. If you wish to fix up these types of links, you are free to do so or not. Personally, I think WP is better without them. If you want to fix links the way you want to fix them, rather than the way I want to fix them, and you say you need some more time, I will stop deleting them for a reasonable time. But you have been saying they will be fixed for close to a year now, so there must be a definite limit and you must agree to stop reverting me after that deadline passes. Do you wish to pursue that? Station1 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for offending you. In general i think from your edits that you do care about readers.

Thanks for making an offer. I don't think i can do much with it though. It seems contradictory to your statement that you don't want to force other editors to do anything. Your offer would seem to amount to an ultimatum: fix up all NRHP entries by X date, or else you will then delete all that you deem imperfect. And you want me to promise not to revert your deletions after date X. For me to really accept your agreement, I would need to have some plan to get them all fixed to your satisfaction, but I don't see how I could realistically manage that. I don't know how many entries there are, but I think it is too many for me to fix on my own in any short timeframe, and I would not want to devote 100% of my wikipedia editing to this task, just to satisfy you. I do not see the imperfection in the entries as represtenting an important problem, myself. Further, I don't think other editors would be motivated to help, in order to comply with the effective ultimatum in your offer. I wouldn't want to pretend to agree with you, in order to stop your edits until date X, and then proceed with reverting your deletions after that point. But at any date, before or after X, I don't think deletions are justified and I do think reverting them is justified. So I don't see how to work with this particular offer.

For an offer that could really work, involving just you and me, why not just agree to split the work on fixing up dab pages that have NRHP entries that you come across? Honestly i don't understand why you would not be interested. It would be very easy to coordinate: you would just add an appropriate tag to the dab page that you have partly cleaned up, and I or others would complete the work. As one option, you could not touch the NRHP entries at all, but rather just tag the page. As another option, you could agree to do the easy fixes and leave the harder ones to me. We could handle the latter option between just ourselves, and i could keep up with you, i believe. If you or others are just tagging pages, i could recruit other NRHP editors to help revise the NRHP entries, but I am not sure whether I could make guarantees about keeping the backlog low.

How about just trying a tagging option for a while, and seeing how that goes? I'll keep watching here. --doncram (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you really have no idea how uncivil you can sound. You come to my talk page asking for a compromise and then when I propose something you call it an ultimatum. It is very annoying. But leaving that aside, how about if I leave a message on your talk page and then wait 7 days before editing a dab page you've previously edited? Station1 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for delay in response; i actually did reply a while back but my connection lost my edit. Sorry also that you take offense at my comments. I was trying to consider accepting or working with your first proposal, and in doing so considering how I could describe it to others, and I was trying to describe to you my difficulty in presenting it.

But, about trying the option of your giving notice, do let's try that. You could either give notice at my Talk page or add {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} to a given dab page. I will make an effort to address dab pages that you give notice upon, either way. I can't make guarantees of dealing with everything within some fixed deadline, as the amount of work could easily be too great. I don't know whether you mean you will yourself try to make any effort with the NRHP entries or not, like in your fixing the easy items where "what links here" checks out, but I am hopeful you will find your way to that. You do have to check "what links here" to determine whether any items are incorrectly formatted in your view, already, so your fixing those directly would be most helpful. Anyhow, if you just proceed slowly i am hopeful this will work. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. When I come across a dab page that you have edited that includes an entry of the type "*[[Redlink]], [[listed on the NRHP in Someplace]]" that needs correction, I will briefly notify you on your talk page and wait 7 days before deleting. Station1 (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. We don't need to be agreed upon what happens after 7 days for this to work. I think this is a compromise that can work, and I will try to make it work, by myself planning to work on the dab pages you give notice about, and/or by my seeking to get others also to address them. --doncram (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest at ANI

Hi. I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:doncram -- you may (or may not) be interested in the discussion there. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Station1 (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Westbrook Waldron

Thank you for your assistance with Thomas Westbrook Waldron and Thomas Westbrook Waldron (Consul). You rightly indicated that with only one article there was no need for a qualifier. Am hoping in time to introduce a 2nd Thomas Westbrook Waldron and will deal with the qualifiers then. Would it be permissible to alter your redirect page to a disambiguation page when two of that name each have their own page? RWIR (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I didn't realize a second article was planned (I was wondering why the "consul" was there for a not-that-common name). I assume you think that neither will be the primary topic for the name. Station1 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:otheruses4

Please do not use this template; it is deprecated. Please replace with {{about}}.199.126.224.245 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Otheruses4 is is the former name for 'about' and redirects there. There's no reason not to use it. Station1 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to keep templates under one name. The main reason otheruses4 should not be useused is because there are no sequential templates before or after this template. It is easier for future editors and newer editors to use {{about}}. So yes, there is reason not to use it.

As you said, otheruses4 was once used, but now it redirects to an eponymous template.199.126.224.245 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW the IP is a sock of banned user User:100110100. If you let an admin know, we can block him again if he comes back. You are right that either name can be used. Sorry for the inconvenience, — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Station1 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Governor's House as a set index article?

I notice u recently edited the Governor's House article now at Governor's House (New York, New York). I notice Governor's Mansion contains a navbox covering the current governor mansions/houses of the 50 U.S. states. Surely there are Governor's Mansion places in many English commonwealth countries, too though. Governor's House could be a disambiguation page, which i started up just now. But i think this is a topic of some interest, so am thinking a set index article with a table of places in the U.S. and elsewhere named Governor's House or Mansion or variations. What do you think? --doncram (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A set index article would be fine if you want to write one. But Governor's House and Governor's Mansion should be two separate pages because, although the names may be interchangeable in some cases, they are not in all cases (e.g., the Governor's House on Governors Island is never called Governor's Mansion). My guess (although I don't know) is that the residences of U.S. governors are more often called Governor's Mansion or Executive Mansion than Governor's House, with house being used more for historic uses. Each page should of course have a link to the other. If you do create a broad set index article, there could also be a Governor's House (disambiguation) page for those few articles actually titled "Governor's House". Also, I don't use "(New York, New York)" as a qualifier because it's rarely used on WP and is not intuitive to search for or link to. Per WP:PRECISION all that's necessary is "(New York)" or "(New York City)" if you prefer. In this particular case I think "(Governors Island)" might be the best qualifier to make clear which one is being described. Station1 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As you've seen i started up a list-article, which is now at List of governors' mansions in the United States, which has attracted several editors' many edits and seems on its way to greatness.... :) I agree both disambiguation pages are still needed. Also there are places named "Governor's House" or Governor's Mansion which are not state governor's houses, e.g. the house of the director of some institution in Maine that is NRHP-listed. About the Governor's Island one, i just thot it looked odd contemplating it as Governor's House (Governor's Island, New York) and thot New York, New York would be more descriptive. But i am fairly indifferent on that, please feel free to move it to whichever you prefer. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the list article. Good work! Station1 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It still is all in flux though. The list-article may end up dropping various ones like Governor John L. Pennington House, if that turns out to be just a private residence and not ever an official, state-owned residence. I'd rather get the list-article settled more before fully considering how much the Governor's House and Governor's Mansion dab pages can be pared back. So i added that one and some others back to the Governor's House one for now at least. I think places with a documented alternative name "Governor's House" or with Governor and House in the name should both end up included in the dab page; i know some may differ on that; but can we wait a bit before debating that if necessary. Also i think the navbox on the Governor's Mansion dab page has to be removed, in favor of individual entries for the places actually named or having alternative name "Governor's Mansion". I don't recall ever seeing a navbox on a dab page. I think the navbox can appear on each of its entries' pages, but not on a dab, right? I'd like to leave that decision for a while too, also until the list-article is better settled. Hope that would be okay by you. --doncram (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Several points there: 1. I tend to agree private residences should be dropped from the list, but I usually don't get too involved in list articles. 2. Agree that places with a documented alternative name "Governor's House" could be on that dab page. The only one I see like that is Delaware, and people can get to that through the link to the Governor's Mansion dab page, so I think that's a borderline case, but I wouldn't delete it if you insist. I would avoid the redirect though. 3. Very strongly disagree that merely having Governor and House in the name qualifies: such places are virtually never called "Governor's House" in reliable sources and they make it more difficult to find the places that are virtually always called "Governor's House" and nothing else in reliable sources, such as the one on Governors Island. That's especially true if the page is all mixed up and the real Governor's Houses don't come first - they are the ones people are most likely searching for if they use the phrase "Governor's House". I agree we can wait as long as you want before debating but I need to change it back in the meantime. 4. I don't believe I've ever seen a navbox on a dab page either, and I definitely noticed it. Normally I'm the first one to suggest following the MOS:DAB guidelines, but in this particular case it seems to work. Maybe a rare legitimate case of IAR? Station1 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Post office move(s)

Hey i just noticed your move of a U.S. Post Office article, with edit summary saying u r avoiding an abbreviation. There's been a lot of discussion of this, and an RFC, which may have ended now, but i believe did not settle on making such moves. Can you please not make any such moves without some discussion. As i believe this move was improper relative to RFC (it is not documented in any source that "United States" is spelled out in the name of that place, while it is documented that "U.S." is part of its name), i will move it back. You can get to the RFC i am sure from Talk:U.S. Post Office where the discussion started. If u comment in the RFC i will probably see it. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The result of the RFC, and more importantly WP guidelines on abbreviations, is that they should generally be written out in article titles. Station1 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. That was not the conclusion there. It was not closed by any administrator, but the last section at the bottom shows some resolution between the other main editor participating there and me. Are u speaking of some other RFC?

And, the name of the post office in question is Old Middletown Post Office, an alternative name documented for it in the NRIS database and chosen i think by the article creator, so i moved it back to that. This name has no abbreviations. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also referring to that RFC. I believe the consensus is that U.S.=United States. In this case, the move back to Old Middletown Post Office solves the problem very nicely - thanks. Station1 (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my read of the RFC. I saw a lot of outrage about different things, but no persistent, clear reasoning why U.S. must always be spelled out (e.g. when every source states it as "U.S.", and that is what is in a photo of the building, and when the name is hugely long otherwise and no one would want to spell it out, etc.). But okay, good, done here. --Doncram (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If u r now working through the U.S. Post Office dab page, please note that is a work-in-progress. Given the naming dispute that came up, i elected to start creating articles for every one. That allows for name debates to happen at individual articles. I focussed on those that were also courthouses earlier and did all of those, and i have completed some states. That has already resolved any issues about supporting bluelinks in the dab for those states. This dab is not going to be in perfect condition any time real soon though: it is the longest NRHP-related dab of them all, and starting articles takes time. --Doncram (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doing that, but may take a look later if I have time. Station1 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Don't! Please admire U.S. Post Office and Courthouse though.  :) And i was nearly done with U.S. Customhouse and Post Office, too. --Doncram (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)