I appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks for editing my work. I have a sophomore team schedule I would like to add to the 1899 western University page but do not know how..... Pittalum (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
pitt football
Thanks!! Pittalum (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Cbl62!! Happy New Year!! I was just wondering if you were still subscribing to Newspapers.com, and if you would be willing to help me out with a small project with it? Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! If I could get the story in the left column, second from the top on this page that would be great. Thanks!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep! Thank you!! Could I have the top stories in the center and right columns too, if you don't mind? Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! One last favor, if you don't mind: the center column, second from the bottom. Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry; I meant the one immediately to the right of that one. Sorry! Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Smith (American football) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any criteria for determining which pages should get that template? If it's fine for any page, I'd be happy to help out. Lepricavark (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Not sure what the criteria are, but I find it fascinating. I've been adding it to a number of Michigan football article, out of curiosity to see what kind of readership these pages receive. Feel free to help out. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be glad to jump in. Lepricavark (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it serves an extremely useful navigational purpose -- in navigating between and among a major program's list of great rushers. Frankly, it's something that's long been needed, and is every bit as valid/useful as a team quarterback navbox. Compare Template:Michigan Wolverines quarterback navbox. For players like Ted Kress, Tony Branoff, Fred Baer, Russell Davis, Harlan Huckleby, Lawrence Ricks, Rick Rogers, Tony Boles, Jon Vaughn, Ricky Powers, B. J. Askew, Brandon Minor, and a couple dozen more, being Michigan's lead rusher is a career-defining characteristic -- and results in absolutely no navbox clutter. I started with Michigan, USC, and Alabama, as those three teams have storied histories filled with great running backs. ... As for creating the Ohio State statistical leaders article, it's not something that interests me. Cbl62 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood your last comment. I thought you were suggesting creating such an article, but I see that it already exists. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I meant creating lists like the Ohio State one for other programs. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Mostly due to some recent events you're no doubt aware of, I seem to have a renewed enthusiasm for editing. How long that lasts I'm not sure, but for now, I look forward to working with you again as I try to pick up where I left off. Lizard (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Along with Jweiss11 and everyone else, of course. :P Lizard (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: Whatever the cause, that's great news. I look forward to it as well! Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Good to have you back and congrats on LSU! Jweiss11 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Pitt football
Thanks for the kind comments. I plan to keep plugging away. If you see something I need to amend/add/am doing wrong feel free to let me know. You will not hurt my feelings. I want to get this stuff correct and of course follow the wiki rules while doing it. Thanks again and have a wonderful weekend. Pittalum (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I created this draft article in direct response to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1973 San Diego Toreros football team. From what I can tell, the high school football team individual season I researched seemed to garner much more coverage to pass GNG than the Division III football team that went to the championship semifinals. Eagles24/7(C) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Impressive work. Are you intending to publish it to main space? If so, I'd note that there's a reluctance, and for good reason, to opening the floodgates to season articles on high school football teams (or even Division III teams for that matter). Bear in mind that San Diego is now a Division I team which is going to trigger more interest in its history than a team that has always played at the Division III level. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am planning on moving it into mainspace and I expect some sort of backlash eventually. I think the general thinking to exclude high school sports teams seasons here is mainly because they aren't accessible on the national level through television. Just based on news coverage, they're likely on the same level as many college programs. Eagles24/7(C) 17:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Cbl62, I wonder if you'd be willing to help me out with newspapers.com again one more time. The project I'm working on right now is trying to get some sources together to beef up the article for Teresa Cheatham. Given the subject timeframe involved, the chief target here would be Alabama-based newspapers from the late 1970's. Just looking around briefly, there appears to be some stuff in places like here, here, here, and here. Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, I wanted to remind you that this review was done back in mid-December, yet you haven't responded to it on the review page or made any edits to the article. If you're still interested in pursuing it, please give it some attention; either way, please post to the review regarding your intentions. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: I had not noticed. Was reacting to criticism at the AfD that seemed focused on the title of the article. Thanks for fixing. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I really have no strong opinion on any name. I just read through that AFD though, yikes. Makes my AFD noms seem tame lol. «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The southwestern region should be distinguished from the southern region, as one can see by UVA claiming southern titles when there may have been undefeated southwestern schools. Delaware is a northern school, and Navy is tough but imo should be northern (If they ran the table and beat Army, they'd be claiming an Eastern and MNC, not a mere Southern title). The "Western" for the west coast will also be very confusing for anybody reading contemporary sources. It's also plausible one should have to separate the midwest and the missouri valley, but I will leave that up to you as the resident expert on that region. I made the necessary moves for 1896-1904, which I hope can help further edits. Cake (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jweiss11:@MisterCake: We went through this discussion a couple years ago, and there's a lot of room for disagreements and subjective opinions as to what schools belong in what region. For that reason, I though there had been consensus to divide independents into regions that follow the four official regional divisions established by the United State Census Bureau. This avoids arguments and subjective opinions. I continue to believe the Census Bureau divisions are best. The four official official geographic divisions are set forth in Wikipedia's articles on each region: Eastern United States, Midwestern United States, Southern United States, and Western United States. Also, terms such as Southwestern United States (California? Texas? Nevada? Arkansas?), Missouri River Valley (Oklahoma? Iowa? Colorado? South Dakota? The current Missouri Valley Conference extends into Illinois and Indiana, but not Nebraska), and Deep South (Kentucky? Florida? Virginia?), Pacific (Hawaii? Alaska? Nevada? Idaho? Arizona? Montana? Colorado?), Mountain states, or Upper Midwest are fraught with ambiguity and subjectivity. IMO we are better off sticking with the four clearly-defined regions established by the Census Bureau. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
As for Navy (located in Annapolis, MD), would you also consider Univ. Maryland (located 30 miles to the west in College Park) to be Northern? If not, how to you justify treating them differently. The Census Bureau puts the State of Maryland in the Southern United States. Cbl62 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it works a lot better now. Also, apparently the SWIAA was a thing, see the discussion on my talk page with BillCasey over baseball. So, lots of those probably won't turn out to be independent. As I understand, the old Big12 was missouri valley and southwest, while the Big 10 was midwest. Maryland is in the South. Even the DC schools seem to consider themselves southern, such as Georgetown and Gallaudet. However, Navy has a rivalry with Army, and is a branch of the armed forces, which seem itself a sort of region within the East. Navy was considered real, Eastern football. Compare 1918 Navy's reputation with 1918 Georgia Tech's. Not like the Navy would join the Confederacy against the Army. Cake (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, it would be nice to have a "regional champion" mark and a "regional record" or something in place of the conference record. The state championships could also help us with how to order them. Cake (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I continue to think the four Census-define regions work better and avoid the subjectivity reflected in your templates placing states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and Montana in a "Pacific" region. These states are all "Western", not "Pacific". Further, the idea of designating "regional champion" would be WP:OR if not supported by a source calling them the regional champion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Cbl here. The idea was to employ geographical regions for the general convenience of keep any one template from getting to big and unwieldy. They don't necessarily need to match up with any regional title claims. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
You two know as well as I do the "Western Conference" meant the Midwest, west of the Alleghenies, not the Pacific Coast. That's what those regions were called then. It is going to be beyond confusing for the Pacific independents to be called Western, but the midwestern teams with a conference also called Western. Those states you list as if obviously not pacific have teams that are in the Pac 12 for a reason. There isn't a 'mountain region' in between to pick from here, and they certainly aren't midwestern. I would not budge that it's what they need to be called. Also the regional titles are important. I've gone back to the 4 regions, but have edited the southern standings accordingly to reflect the 3 regions of southern play. I've also tried to tease out state standings. Before a school competed for a Southern or other regional championship, they competed for state championships, with a few exceptions. Cake (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
These templates have nothing to do with the Western Conference or any other conference. They are simply a breakdown of the independent schools using the four Census-defined regions, a breakdown designed to avoid the overcrowding resulting from a single "independents" template. Placing schools from Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah into a "Pacific" region during the 1890s and early 1900s makes no sense as (a) the Pacific Athletic Conference didn't even exist at this time, (b) these states did not have teams that were part of the Pacific Athletic Conference even when it was formed, (c) these states are hundreds of miles from the Pacific coast, (d) nobody, then or now, would reasonably think of these states as being in a Pacific region, (e) the Census defines the region as Western, which makes sense because they are all part of the Western United States. For all of these reasons, I continue to believe the "Western" is a far more accurate description for the fourth region. Cbl62 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
They are in the Pac see Pacific 10 or 12 now, and then in Spaldings Guides or anything else that is what it would be called. It is, I hope you would agree, strange to see teams from the Southern Conference and Southern Independents mean the same region, yet teams from the Midwest in the "Western Conference" but from the Pacific Coast in the "Western Independents". It was called the Western Conference because Western, whether it was conference or independents or anything else, meant west of the Alleghenies, what we today call the Midwest. The conference was named after what they called that region. That's what this is about, not that they were somehow derivative of the conference. I am aware today west and midwest do not mean the same thing, but I think on pain of contradiction and anachronism one should stick to what they meant then. Cake (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, I do not believe that Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah were considered in the 1890s or 1900s to be part of a "Pacific region". Referring to them as such is what is anachronistic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You could argue it is geographically in error, but it's not anachronistic. It would be anachronistic if Pacific nowadays meant New England and so the Eastern teams were the Pacific Independents while the Pacific Conference was all west coast schools. The point in its favor is this: What was the west coast called when west meant midwest? It was called the pacific coast. Yes, Utah, say, is not on the coast, but that they play in the Pac still is due to a shared legacy with schools that are. And that there are border cases doesn't seem to disprove the rule. It seems to me the most natural term. Regardless, one can't use Western. Mountain would be an improvement. Cake (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It is anachronistic ... unless you can show me sources from the 1890s or 1900s referring to Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah as being part of a "Pacific region." I've yet to see such a source. I can show you dozens from the 1890s and 1900s referring to these states as being part of the "Western United States". The Midwest was already a term in very common usage by the turn of the 20th century and was used to distinguish the Midwest from the West. Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
An example: Here is an official 1913 United State Government publication defining the USA's regions including Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc) and West (California, Arizona, Washington, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Oregon, etc.). Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me a large issue of consistency to have the Western Conference mean Western as in west-of-alleghenies and Western Independents mean Western as in west-of-mississippi. Perhaps "West Coast Independents" could please us both. Colorado only seems to me an interesting border case. West Virginia never is mentioned for a Southern title, and is usually handled separately in Spalding's Guides. Kentucky is Northern when it lost and Southern when it won, as they played several Ohio and Indiana schools. Colorado is Mountain or Rockies in the Guides, but we don't have that region available. For the rest I feel I only really need mention the Pac-12 uses it in the name despite Utah and Arizona not being technically on the coast. Utah would also be Mountain, and again we only have 4 regions. I will look again through the guides and such though and report back if I find anything that I think weighs on either side of this, as I am admittedly unfamiliar in the football history over there. Cake (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Here for example is an article in a 1909 Spalding Guide throughout using West to mean the midwest. And there is a Mountain, Pacific Northwest, and California region covered, but nothing referring to western football as meaning west of the Mississippi. I find that significant, and felt you all with your great deep dives on Michigan would know an "All-Western" team, meaning simply the region and not necessarily the conference, isn't going to have anybody from USC on it. Cake (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
More directly to my point, the Spalding guide completely belies your aggregation of states like Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado as being part of a "Pacific" region. This actually supports my position that your use of "Pacific" to cover these states is both anachronistic and geographically inaccurate. Cbl62 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Also if you flip four pages back from your link, you will see the article on Football in the Middle West which covers teams in the states of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, etc. This confirms that there is nothing anachronistic about referring to schools in this region as "Midwestern". Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I feared I would have to inb4 that to get back to the point. Yes, the article that says "The West" and is the "All-Western" team is in the Midwest section. Presumably, the All-Western team should be the west coast, if thats what Western meant then. How come it doesn't use Western to mean that? So what do we call the California, Pacific Northwest, and Mountains schools together as a unit? Western is taken. I opted for Pacific. California was also called the Pacific Coast. So, yes, Utah and New Mexico and Wyoming and Colorado would share the region with California and the Pacific Northwest, reflected in Utah being in the Pac-12 to this day. "Midwest meant Midwest then" doesn't help you. The point is Western meant Midwest, at least in college football. Cake (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
My solution is simple: We use the same methodology across all time periods. That methodology is the four Census designated regions. It's the only division that provides continuity across time and provides an orderly division. Cbl62 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, I concur with Cbl62 here. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Fellas, so what's the verdict here? I see that MisterCake has changed the naming scheme here for some of these templates up thru 1928 from "Midwestern" to "Middle West" and "Western" to "Far West". I'm inclined to revert those changes and restore the original naming. I think we should have one consistent naming scheme up through 1955. Also, Cake has subdivided some of the Southern templates into sub-regions, e.g. Template:1904 Southern college football independents records. If we're going to do, it would make more to sense to use the divisional structure for that, e.g. those found at Template:1992 Southeastern Conference football standings. Thoughts Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so I moved all the "Middle West" templates back to "Midwestern". Moving "Far West" back to "Western" is going to require some technical moves because of redirects. I also removed the sub-regions from the Southern templates. These were not thought out well in terms of defining the sub-regions or formatting. Happy to discuss better ways to do this, although I lean toward keeping things simple and just having an undivided Southern region. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1925 San Francisco Seals season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wizardman 21:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Cbl, heads up that the newish standard (put in place in the last couple of years) for the high school field in Template:Infobox NFL biography is not to use parenthetical state codes. Jerry Rice or Steve Young are examples of the preferred formatting. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, that's complicated. I'd rather just not include it in the template. Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The article Darrell Evans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Darrell Evans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bob Mann (American football) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:INVOLVED, I think it's bad form for you to attempt to instruct the closing admin what the consensus is. I encourage you to stop being a bad example in your effort to maintain a stub article about a college football coach. You are causing the very systemic bias for which this website has been condemned. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Congrats on the collaboration GA! How are you feeling about taking it to WP:FAC? «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: To you, too. I've never run an article through FAC and find the process a bit daunting. If you want to give it a go, though, I'm willing to assist. Cbl62 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I had the same feeling. It took me 10 years to take my first article to WP:FAC. I've asked Casliber to run through it for a pre-FAC check, similar to what they did for me for Packers sweep. Then I will probably run through the article again with a fine tooth comb and then nominate it! I'll let you know when I draft the nomination for your review. Cheers, «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually i think i do like the Santa Barbara Pastoral Region article and the others you mention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester. The SBPR article is in effect a school district article (which IMO should be obviously okay always, and list the elementary schools) and more. And the RC region is maybe comparable, financial entity-wise, to the governmental taxing area of a public school district. And the topic is faithful to the parent organization's choice of how to organize itself, region-wise. And probably helps head off creation of separate articles about the schools and the parish churches which can be covered in table rows instead. I maybe have come across too oppositionally to what you said at the AFD, but I have said enough or too much for now there. I will have to think and absorb what your comment means with respect to the non-RC related AFDs, too. Maybe there is some way forward out of this. Thank you for contributing. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doncram: Always good to have your input. I do agree that a list article is an effective substitute for creation of separate articles on non-notable parish churches. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
dioceses of England and Wales
Could you share, please, if you know, how to see maps/boundaries of the RC dioceses in the UK? And perhaps about "deaneries", that is such an unfamiliar word for me, and there is nothing about deaneries besides infobox mention of there being 13, in the Nottingham diocese article by the way. The Leicester deanery is not mentioned or defined anywhere in Wikipedia yet. You may have noticed, I am developing out the List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom and reorganizing it by diocese at least. How would you know, for example, whether the Leicester "deanery" district coincides with city of Leicester borders? There is very large scale map here, but i need more detail to be able to actually look up where a given place near borders is. Hoping u might be able to help. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The entry for each church on the Diocese of Nottingham indicates which Deanery it belongs to. They also have a map on the parishes subpage -- all the churches in the Leicester metro area are part of the Leicester Deanery. Cbl62 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that Google map there helps. It doesn't show borders of any of the districts or of Leicester, but I can visually compare locations vs. Leicester borders shown in another Google map window. FYI, the 20 churches listed in the Leicester deanery are not all in Leicester; Narborough for example is not. This leans me further towards view that the "List of RC churches in Leicester" article should be merged out of existence, in favor of putting the notable ones in the RC in UK list (where they are already, but should be developed out more there) and, sure, adding a list of the parish churches to the Nottingham diocese article. Divided by "deanery" there if you like. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Another factual question, can you tell somehow if the Polish church is actually part of the diocese/deanery? Or is part of a diocese serving Kraków or wherever in Poland? There is CatholicDirectory.com about Leicester which reports diocese, but that church is not in it. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW, in some old AFD about a church on some small island in the Caribbean or elsewhere in the Atlantic (and not sure if it was RC or not), it turned out that church is, oddly, part of the Chicago archdiocese or whatever. Like it had been adopted from afar. So that happens. IIRC, the AFD nominator thot that fact was significantly odd and notable that they withdrew the AFD nomination. I could find this in my AFD participation history if it would be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Already did that. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry if these questions/comments here might bother you. They would naturally be on the Talk page of the article in question, but i worry there is too much there for the editors participating to handle already, without this kind of stuff too. --Doncram (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I had not yet seen that you had developed a lot there, when i started asking questions here. Well actually i am trying now to have a lower-energy factual facts and questions section at the Talk page, new section Talk:List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester#some factual matters, maybe that will work and stay non-contentious, I hope. --Doncram (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Well that (trying factual discussion at article Talk yesterday) did not work out well. I tried posing that there were different possible views. But I think i came across as too challenging/confrontational to you, given your reaction there, so I responded there trying to accept fault as if I were wrong, which maybe helps or maybe does not. There has existed really strong views, and really strong understanding that it was about city of Leicester alone (despite my seeming to concede otherwise) and I was thinking that being very explicit about changes going on would help move consensus. Now I think I should have covered it separately here, first?
Anyhow, the state of the article and/or consensus on its scope is messy now. What do you think about having an explicit decision in "Next steps" section there, about say:
a proposal A: move and refocus upon current parishes in deanery. Make the main table be about current parishes, e.g. cover "St. Mary's and St. John Bosco" as one parish as it is now, rather than two items one for each church. Explicitly drop all attempt to cover former churches and any former parishes. Note there is lack of clarity whether the Priory is a parish (honestly i don't know how this works; i didn't know before that an archdiocese is also a diocese, maybe this is similar?) The diocese page of parishes seems to be implying there are 20 parishes, with Leicester (presumably meaning a downtown or central area?) being one and listing various communities within and without the city limits. How can the list of parishes be resolved? I think the Polish one is a parish in the deanery and should be included? Fact that boundary of deanery is not mapped will not be much of an issue, as we are not trying to determine which former churches are included. Drop mention of demolished by 1450 one.
a proposal B: move and refocus upon churches, current and former, in deanery. Make main table be about churches that are "table-item-notable" meaning we have some description to give; relegate others to mention in a prose list below.
In table note status of each, including which ones are current parish churches. Have separate rows for St. Mary's and St. John Bosco churches which are now part of one parish. Definitely include the Polish one as a row. Clarify that intent is really to cover all the still-existing RC church buildings in city of Leicester (so all RC buildings mentioned in that academic-type database) and all notable former churches. Include the demolished by 1450 one. Go back and re-add the recently deleted former churches and find source.
a proposal C: refocus upon churches, current and former, in city. This is what participants in AFD understood it was (as I have asserted, corresponding to the academic-type database, despite previous versions apparently having included ones outside the city). If, somewhat separately, "Places of worship in Leicester" gets revived, this would perhaps naturally be merged into that.
Could you please comment on what you want to do now? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I will respond on the article talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Cbl62, I was wondering if you would be able to help me out with newspapers.com again? Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ejgreen77: Sure. Let me know what you need. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I need the story in the upper right hand corner here; and the one in the third column from the left, second from the bottom (in the center of the page) here. Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get the story on the bottom of the page, third column from the left here, and the main feature story in the center of the page here? Thanks! Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Here's the second one here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And the first one here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!! Would it be possible to see the rest of the second story, which I believe is located in the lower left hand corner here? Thanks!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cbl62,
We appreciate your previous efforts to monitor changes to the Harold Lloyd Estate entry on Wikipedia, but we are hoping you'll give serious consideration to the posting we made the other day (reproduced below) on the Talk page for the Harold Lloyd Estate entry concerning the section on restrictive covenants. As you had previously request, this detailed analysis systematically demonstrates the lack of substantiation for the serious and deeply troubling allegations against Mr. Lloyd. As such, we are hopeful that the entry for the Harold Lloyd Estate entry on Wikipedia will be edited accordingly.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
HLE1893
Dear Editors,
We represent Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. (“HLE”). Among other things, HLE is the owner of the copyrights and all rights, title and interest in and to the movies of Harold Lloyd (including but not limited to The Freshman) and the publicity rights of Mr. Lloyd, one of the most famous and popular actors and comedians of the silent era. We apologize for contacting you out the blue, but we are reaching out to you at the recommendation of legal counsel at the Wikipedia Foundation, who has suggested that we inform relevant editors of the official Wikipedia entry for the Harold Lloyd Estate, found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lloyd_Estate, about the serious concerns that have arisen regarding the unfounded allegations of racism and support for racially restrictive covenants that have been leveled against Mr. Lloyd therein.
Specifically, we are deeply troubled by the paragraph in the Harold Lloyd Estate’s entry section entitled “Family home” and its assertion that “Greenacres [Mr. Lloyd’s home] was built in the 1920s in Beverly Hills, one of Los Angeles’ all-white planned communities. The area had restrictive covenants prohibiting non-whites (this also included Jews) from living there unless they were in the employment of a white resident (typically a domestic servant). In 1940, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area. However, in his decision, federal judge Thurmond Clarke dismissed the action stating that it was time that ‘members of the Negro race are accorded with reservations or evasions, the full rights, guaranteed to them under the 14 amendment.’” [1] As detailed below, this Allegation is wholly without any factual basis. In the process, it not only unfairly besmirches the good name and reputation of an iconic Hollywood legend, but it is also has caused and continues to cause significant injury to HLE’s existing and prospective business relationships because of the very serious charges of racism that it raises—charges that are (rightfully) toxic in the public arena.
User Ewulp has raised similar concerns about the references to racially restrictive covenants and Mr. Lloyd’s alleged support therefor. As he wrote in the Talk Notes to the Harold Lloyd Wikipedia entry: “The article shouldn't exaggerate Lloyd's role here; these covenants were unfortunately common throughout the US at the time, and Lloyd (as far as we can tell) was not one of the eight white Sugar Hill plaintiffs who sued to have their black neighbors evicted in the 1944 [sic] case that Judge Thurmond Clarke decided.” [2] Said allegations have now been removed from Harold Lloyd’s individual Wikipedia entry after having been determined by the editors there to be lacking foundation and support. As such, we kindly request that you do the same on the Harold Lloyd Estate entry on Wikipedia.
Indeed, there are no facts whatsoever establishing any link between Harold Lloyd and the Sugar Hills litigation or any of the plaintiffs therein and, as detailed below, any allegation of racism against Mr. Lloyd is wholly at odds with any facts we know about his life and how he lived it. As such, we are writing to kindly request that you might consider, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, to correct the problematic portion regarding said Allegation and the surrounding discussion regarding racially restrictive covenants. Your consideration of this request is deeply appreciated.
Allow us first to begin by thanking you for the unparalleled public service that you, through Wikipedia, provide to the world. Wikipedia is an invaluable public resource that has democratized knowledge and leavened disparities in access to social, political, cultural and scientific information and its many volunteers, such as yourself, play a vital role in that. As such, Wikipedia has represented a transformative tool for education, transparency, and, above all, the truth in a time when so-called ‘Fake News’ dominates the Internet.
With Wikipedia’s dedication to accuracy, proper sourcing and careful research in mind, the detailed analysis below plainly demonstrates that the Allegation against Mr. Lloyd Harold is without substance or reliable support. And, unfortunately, the Allegation tarnishes the legacy of an American legend and causes direct economic harm to HLE and its intellectual property and contractual interests. As you know, charges of racism and bigotry can impact the way in which a public figure is viewed and it can shatter careers and legacies (see, e.g., Paula Deen, PewDiePie, Kate Smith, John Wayne and Morrissey). When these allegations are without basis, lives are fundamentally altered both unjustly and unfairly. In this particular case, the Allegations have already threatened HLE and, among other things, interfered with its existing and prospective business relationships. Specifically, HLE is under contract with certain companies for a forthcoming original, feature-length animated motion picture based on Harold Lloyd and his films. This project is now in jeopardy as a direct result of the unfounded Allegations. These companies have put HLE on direct notice that investor concerns regarding the Allegations are significantly curtailing the ability of the movie’s producers to raise the necessary funding for continuing support of the project.
In the Wikipedia entry for Harold Lloyd, the Allegation is footnoted with a single citation to a single source—a book by Stephen Grant Meyer. The Talk File for the “Restrictive Covenant” section of Harold Lloyd’s entry on Wikipedia,[3] further expands on the purported support for the Allegation by referencing “at least three reliable sources for Lloyd’s involvement in presenting the restrictions.” Yet these sources—books by Stephen Grant Meyer, Anima Hassan and Nancie Clare—do not provide any credible support for the proposition that Mr. Lloyd supported racially restrictive covenants and efforts to keep blacks and Jews out of Beverly Hills or his neighborhood. Thus, the Allegations violate Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy and verifiability. Given the particularly incendiary nature of the claims—claims that easily fall under Wikipedia’s policy for “exceptional claims”—Wikipedia’s own burden of requiring multiple high-quality sources supporting the proposition is simply not met.
First of all, Nancie Clare’s book THE BATTLE FOR BEVERLY HILLS (St. Martin’s Press, 2018)[4] states only that Lloyd “joined a neighborhood association whose goal was to enforce the city’s restrictive covenants that prohibited nonwhites, including Jews, from buying or renting property in the city,” id. at 195—an aspersion that could be cast upon millions of Americans at a time when both political major political parties—both Democrats and Republicans—supported such measures. More importantly, the book does not remotely suggest that Mr. Lloyd actually supported any efforts to enforce restrictive covenants (the proposition for which it is relied upon); rather, it simply claims that Mr. Lloyd was a mere member of a group that supported restrictive covenants. Above all, it does not provide any citation to substantiate its accusations and it does not provide any details regarding the neighborhood association in question or its identity.
Meanwhile, both the Meyer and Hassan books only restate claims from a single, 70-word article that appeared in the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 (the “Article”). Specifically, Stephen Grant Meyer’s book, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T MOVE NEXT DOOR (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001),[5] alleges that “one of the white home owners who led the challenge to black occupancy in Beverly Hills was also an actor: the silent-screen comedian, Harold Lloyd.” Id. at 76. Yet the only citation it makes that might support any such speculation is to the Chicago Defender Article.
Amina Hassan’s book, LOREN MILLER: CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY AND JOURNALIST (University of Oklahoma Press, 2015),[6] fares no better. It claims that “In 1941, . . . Harold Lloyd, famous for hanging from the hands of a skyscraper clock tower in Safety Last! (1923), led the drive to keep blacks and Jews from moving into nearby Beverly Hills. Id. at 132. To support this proposition, Hassan’s book also cites only to the Chicago Defender Article. And, to make matters worse and to cast the rigor of Hassan’s research into further doubt, she erroneously cites the Article to date the relevant events as taking place in 1941 when, in fact, the Chicago Defender has them taking place in 1945.
In effect, therefore, the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd solely emanate from the Article. All of the remaining sources that state the Allegation are simply mimicking the claim by citing back to the Article. Thus, to assess the reliability and accuracy of the Allegation, it is necessary to examine the Article. As even the most cursory review of the Article demonstrates, the Chicago Defender piece neither credibly asserts the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd nor does it have any support from other sources.
The Article, entitled “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive,” appeared on the front page of the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 and its total content of 70 words reads as follows: "The famous film comedian of the silver screen was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive. A recent letter, sent out over the name of the famous actor, called for a meeting of residents here to sign restrictive covenants. The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials who admitted that Lloyd had been elected president recently."
While it is true that Mr. Lloyd, at one time, served as the head of Beverly Hill’s Chamber of Commerce, the reminder of the Article is filled with ambiguities, inaccuracies, unsupported speculation and sophistry:
The Article engages in pure conjecture and succumbs to salacious innuendo in remarking, vaguely and in the passive voice, that Mr. Lloyd “was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive.” Notably, therefore, the Article fails to name any sources for its idle and unsupported tabloid gossip. For example:
The Article refers to a purported letter that was sent out by the Chamber of Commerce which the Article ties to Harold Lloyd. But, notably, it does not say the letter was written or drafted by Harold Lloyd, or even approved by Harold Lloyd (it merely alleges that it was “sent out over the name” of Harold Lloyd).
The Article fails to quote any actual contents of the purported letter. As such, its characterization of the letter and its contents are rightfully suspect and unsupported.
The Article only states the letter “called for a meeting of residents . . . to sign restrictive covenants.” As such, the Article does not state, outright, that an actual position was taken in the letter (i.e., that restrictive covenants are good or bad) and, quite possibly, the letter, if it existed, may have only provided information that such a meeting was taking place.
The Article is unclear as to when the letter was sent out (referring only to the vague characterization of “recently”), a particularly odd omission since official letter are always dated. As such, the Article’s leap in logic—that Harold Lloyd was recently made president of the Chamber of Commerce and that, therefore, the letter must be reflective of his point of view, is pure speculation. Indeed, the Article does not expressly spell out that the letter was written or sent out while Mr. Lloyd was, in fact, President.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Article itself acknowledges that the purported letter’s authenticity and accuracy in reflecting the viewpoint of the Chamber of Commerce (and, by extension, Harold Lloyd, who is being tied to the views of the Chamber of Commerce by virtue of his presidency thereof for a period of time) was contemporaneously and directly disputed and called into question. As the Article admits, “The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials.” This sentence—the concluding one in the Article—renders the salacious, unsupported and speculative headline “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive” wholly bunk and makes any misrepresentation of this Article as historical truth wholly inappropriate.
It's also worth noting that the statements surrounding the sentence containing the Allegation in Mr. Lloyd’s Wikipedia page are also demonstrably false or inaccurate. Specifically, the Harold Lloyd Estates’s Wikipedia page states that “Greenacres [Mr. Lloyd’s home] was built in the 1920s in Beverly Hills, one of Los Angeles’ all-white planned communities. The area had restrictive covenants prohibiting non-whites (this also included Jews) from living there unless they were in the employment of a white resident (typically a domestic servant). In 1940, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area. However, in his decision, federal judge Thurmond Clarke dismissed the action stating that it was time that ‘members of the Negro race are accorded with reservations or evasions, the full rights, guaranteed to them under the 14 amendment.’” [7] Yet these sentences, and their citing sources in the Wikipedia page, are riddled with errors.
Among other things, this section contains the following inaccuracies:
The lawsuit to which the sentences refer challenged racially restrictive covenants in Sugar Hills, which is not in Beverly Hills, but in the West Adams area of Los Angeles. See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (referring to Sugar Hills as being in the West Adams area of Los Angeles).[8] As such, there was no direct link between the lawsuit and Greenacres (which was in Beverly Hills), Harold Lloyd, or any neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills;
The “federal judge” handling the case was, at the time, only a state Superior Court judge for Los Angeles County (Judge Thurmond Clarke did not receive his commission as a federal judge until his appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the 1950’s). See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (noting that Thurmond Clarke was a Superior Court judge, not federal judge);[9]
There was no West Adams Improvement Association or any other kind of homeowners association in the lawsuit;
The eight plaintiffs in the lawsuit were merely local citizens not officially representing any community; and
The case was decided in 1945, not 1940. See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (reporting that the decision occurred in late 1945, not 1944).[10]
This lack of rigor and precision in the page authors’ investigations and research highlights the unreliable nature of the claims contained therein.
While both Los Angeles and the United States have provided unparalleled opportunities to individuals of all races, there is no doubt that the city and our country, as a whole, share a tragic history of bigotry and racism as well. The legacy of racially restrictive covenants continues to haunt us to this very day, as, among other things, it has directly contributed to the vast disparities of wealth that still exist between white and African-American families. But there is no evidence that Harold Lloyd led efforts to prop up the use of racially restrictive covenants or even supported them at any time.
Indeed, everything the historical record contains about Harold Lloyd’s life otherwise suggests that such covenants would be contradictory to his personal values and the way he chose to live. For example, as Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd page acknowledges, Harold Lloyd was an active and honored Freemason and Shriner.[11] As a Freemason, he earned the Rank and Decoration of Knight Commander Court of Honor in 1955 and was coroneted an Inspector General Honorary, 33°. As a Shriner, he was selected as the Imperial Potentate of the Shriner’s of North America in 1949-50. Non-discrimination and color blindness are core, essential values of both the Freemason and Shriner organizations, and have been so, long before such causes were popular or even widely accepted. As Harold Lloyd himself said in a 1949 radio interview regarding his involvement with the Shriner’s:
The Shriners have these marvelous hospitals, all over North America, that do nothing but cure little crippled children, and that's without regard to race, creed, or color. You can go into one of their hospital wards and see little colored children, little white children, all there just the same, there's no discriminating at all, and it's 100% charitable, and the Shrine does not seek aid outside. It's all done by the Shrine and of course that's one of the things they look with great pride upon. It's marvelous work.[12].
Not only would support for racially restrictive covenants be inconsistent with Mr. Lloyd’s lifelong values, but it is also critical to note that there are no other sources that independently verify these incendiary Allegations against Mr. Lloyd. And, in fact, the individuals who know the most about Harold Lloyd’s personal history, life, values and belief strongly deny the Allegations’ veracity. Specifically, declarations sworn under penalty of perjury from Suzanne Lloyd, Annette Lloyd (unrelated to Mr. Lloyd), and Richard Simonton explain their relationship with and to Mr. Lloyd, the basis of their expertise and personal knowledge about Mr. Lloyd and their unequivocal certainty that Mr. Lloyd was never supportive of restrictive covenants and, in fact, found them morally repugnant and inconsistent with his values. Among other things:
Suzanne Lloyd, Mr. Lloyd’s granddaughter, was actually raised by Mr. Lloyd and his wife and, as a result, lived with him for over twenty years and she notes that “she never once heard Harold make a single derogatory remark about anyone based on their race, creed, or religion and I never witnessed him, or had knowledge of him, ever exhibiting any prejudice on the basis of race, color, creed or religion,”[13] and states that the allegations of racism are “utterly inconsistent everything I know about the man that raised me,”[14];
Annette Lloyd, a noted historian and expert on the silent-era and the life and work of Harold Lloyd,[15] declares that, “In the 40-plus year that I have studied, the allegation of racism published in the Chicago Defender in July of 1945 is the only instance I have ever encountered in which HL was mentioned in this light or accused of any sort of intolerance or prejudice,”[16] and that, in light of what she knows about him and his life, the allegations of racism in the Article “are wildly implausible and, also, wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the historical record, Lloyd’s personal values, and the manner in which he conducted his life,”[17] as evidenced by, among other things, his political and charitable affiliations,[18] and his work, where he regularly hired African-Americans during an era otherwise characterized by segregation and bigotry[19];
Richard Simonton, one of the Mr. Lloyd’s last surviving friends, swears, under penalty of perjury, that through his many decades spent with Mr. Lloyd,[20] he “can say with confidence and certainty that I never witnessed him indicate or express any kind of prejudice--never an unkind word about anyone,”[21] and that, among other things, Mr. Lloyd’s extensive involvement with, and commitment to, the Shiners (and their core beliefs kindness, tolerance, and colorblindness) would make any support of racially restrictive covenants utterly inconsistent with his charitable work and the values he embraced through his life.[22]
Finally, the Beverly Hills Historical Society recently unearthed archival video of Harold Lloyd joyously visiting a sick African-American child and embracing him and putting his iconic spectacles on him. The child’s face lights up and the warmth in this interaction is clear to any observer. The video is utterly inconsistent with any view that Mr. Lloyd harbored any prejudice, let alone any virulent racist sentiments. We encourage you to watch the video, which you can download.[23]
All told, therefore, the allegations that tie Mr. Lloyd to support for restrictive covenants, which are published as fact on Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd Estate page, ultimately all derive from a single 70-word Article that repeated unsourced tabloid gossip without verification or quotation. The same Article acknowledged that the very position supposedly attributed to Mr. Lloyd through the Chamber of Commerce had been disputed contemporaneously by the Chamber of Commerce itself.
As such, we are kindly requesting your action to correct and remove the Allegations from Mr. Lloyd’s page once and for all in order to serve the interests of accuracy and reliability that Wikipedia has always sought to uphold and to mitigate the tremendous damages that are being done to Mr. Lloyd’s legacy.
We appreciate your consideration of our request, which we do not make lightly, and we look forward to hearing back from you shortly. We’re also happy to provide additional details and documents if that might be helpful.
HLE1893 —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I see a discrepancy in Template:1903 Eastern college football independents records, which I believe you created earlier this year. The template lists Army as having a record of 11–2–1, however the Wikipedia page for 1903 Army Cadets football team has their record as 6–2–1. I know records of that era can be imprecise.... Anyhow, I wanted check with you to see if the 11–2–1 record was reliably sourced vs. perhaps it's simply a typo? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Dmoore5556, just saw this on my watchlist. Pretty sure that was a typo. I've made the change to 6–2–1. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Jweiss11, great thanks! Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That looks right to me, too. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Heya, I merged this as you had suggested on the talk page, and just pinged you with thanks at AN/I, but I mucked up the ping. So. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Cbl62, I suggest you disclose your participation in the AfD (similar to how I did) at the beginning of your comment on the deletion review. This is considered good practice. --MrClog (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: Isn't that self evident? Is the practice you reference reflected somewhere in the rules? Cbl62 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62 It isn't a rule, it is a good practice. It is the same reason why Jo-Jo Eumerus chose to "self-endorse" rather than "endorse" his own close in a different DRV currently active. --MrClog (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: Didn't get an answer -- is the "practice" you reference memorialized somewhere? Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cbl62: As I said, "[i]t isn't a rule", it isn't written somewhere, like most good practices. --MrClog (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog:. "it isn't written somewhere, like most good practices" I've still seen no indication that it's considered a good practice, and your repeatedly saying it is doesn't make it so. In my experience, good practices are generally documented in some form. Cbl62 (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrClog: I found what you are referring to. WP:DRV states: "Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic." That's what I was looking for. Cbl62 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I vaguely remembered reading it, but couldn't find where, so I supposed it wasn't written down, but apparently it is. --MrClog (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I've expanded this page a bit more and nominated it for DYK. I hope you are fine with me mentioning you in the nomination. epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate you taking note of my edits to the years in Michigan series of articles. I have a question for you in regard to how I can help improve them further. In each of these articles, there's a section entitled "Mayors of major cities". How is a major city defined for the sake of these articles? If a city is once considered a major city, is it always considered one, or can it lose this status in later years? Flint was considered a major city in 1984, but is considered one in 2020, or 1865 for that matter? Some incite into this would be greatly appreciated.
If this isn't the place to ask that question, I apologize, and also ask where it would be appropriate to ask these kinds of questions in the future. I'm not particularly new to Wikipedia, but on my time on this website, I honestly haven't found an appropriate outlet to ask these kinds of questions.
RoundSquare (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@RoundSquare: That's a good question. In general, Wikipedia permits articles on mayors of cities with > 100,000 population ... but that standard is based on modern population levels. Saginaw, as an example, was unquestionably a major city from c. 1890 to 1960, even though it never achieved a population of 100,000. It almost hit that level in 1960, but then the decline began. Another example going in the other direction is Sterling Heights which has a population of > 130,000 but is little more than suburban sprawl. So ... no easy answer and I suggest using judgment. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for a new project to get started on, came across the above-lined page, and found that it dovetails with much of the content I've been adding to Commons lately. Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for the inspiration in starting that article out. I've been adding to it substantially over the past few days and will continue to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: I'd noticed. It's nice to see the list being developed! Cbl62 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Just a quick question: in your opinion, is the wordiness in the "Description/Notes" column a problem? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely longer than I've seen in any of the other church lists by diocese, and if the individual entries had articles, I'd suggest moving the verbiage to the separate articles, but since there are no separate article, it seems ok to me. When you're done, let me know and I can do a more careful copy review. Cbl62 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Cbl62. I've been hard at work on the above article but am now going to take a break and focus on other tasks, so it seems like a good time to take you up on your offer for a more thorough copy review.
Also, going back to the subject of the article's length: I'm sympathetic to your proposed solution of creating articles about the individual churches (that is, those that don't already have their own) to which excessively detailed information could be moved. However, I'm concerned that many of these churches might not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (and frankly, WP:Notability is a bit too byzantine for someone of my level of familiarity with Wikipedia to parse, ergo it would be tough for me to reliably judge for myself which articles would pass muster and which wouldn't). Nonetheless, it seems obvious that the article will end up far too long if the present level of detail is maintained when adding information about churches outside the Buffalo city limits, so I'm wondering if subdividing the article geographically (i.e.List of Roman Catholic churches in Buffalo, New Yorket al.) would be a viable solution. Please advise.
Hi Cbl62. Are you still willing to look this over for me? If not, I'll go ahead and ask someone else. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty rude of you to repeatedly ignore talk page messages like this. Clearly you've been active on Wikipedia in the past weeks and have had ample opportunity to see these messages. If you're too busy with other onwiki activities to follow through on what you promised to do, that's fine, but there's no reason you couldn't have taken a few seconds to dash off a response saying as much. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: I am sorry you think I've been rude. I actually did take a look at the list and found it to be a mess -- descriptions way too long for a list article IMO. I'd been reluctant to comment because I didn't want to appear rude. Looks like I'm caught in a case of "damned if I do, damned if I don't". Cbl62 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I wish you had just been honest with me. I'm not so thin-skinned that I would have been offended. That's why I came to you in the first place, as you'll recall. At any rate, I've taken a second look at WP:Notability, specifically the general notability guideline at the top of the page, and I'm now reasonably sure most of the churches can support their own articles. I think the information I added is valuable even if a list article isn't the best venue for it, and I will get cracking shortly on creating those individual church articles and migrating the info over to them. As for List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, I'm still interested in your thoughts on whether precedent would support subdividing it if warranted. There are currently 163 active parishes in the Buffalo diocese, to say nothing of those no longer extant; if the article is intended to be an exhaustive list, that would make for an unwieldy length even if none of the churches had any descriptions at all. I understand you're busy, and if it's too much of an imposition on your time, I'll ask someone else, but if you're willing, I'd really appreciate you opining on this issue for me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the article. I live relatively close to the diocese (I'm in the Diocese of Hamilton) and I have plenty of photographs of churches in the diocese that I will add.
Jfvoll (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jfvoll: Delighted to hear it. I look forward to seeing the photos. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1917 Temple Owls football team until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, thanks for continuing to crank out all these season articles. What would be extraordinarily helpful is if when creating new articles, you could use clean versions of the infobox and categories and then copy those over article-to-article, instead of just defaulting to whatever the local, latent formatting is of the article adjacent to your starting point. See my cleanup edits at 1939 Dayton Flyers football team, for example. I've be slowing working on cleaning up the thousands of existing season articles. Getting the new ones as they come online synced with that effort would reduce the cleanup workload a great deal. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I will try to keep that in mind. Cbl62 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The note you reference doesn't discuss or elucidate any rationale for the highly abnormal use of initial caps on phrases that are not proper nouns. Is there a rationale? Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You right. It doesn't. I'm going to see if I can get clarification on the talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I posed the question. We'll see what folks have to say. Cbl62 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, what is your rationale for deleting "Flyers" in the cat sorts, such as here? Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The idea is that "Michigan" is supposed to come before "Michigan State", whereas "Michigan Wolverines" would sort after "Michigan State Spartans". That seems to be the standard I've seen others editors use. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've seen inclusion of the nickname as the standard cat sorting until you started changing things. The issue that concerns me with your methodology is that there are teams with the same city or state name where the mascot is the most effective way of sorting. E.g., "Dayton Triangles" and "Dayton Flyers", "Cincinnati Bengals" and "Cincinnati Bearcats", "Detroit Lions" and "Detroit Titans", "Minnesota Vikings" and "Minnesota Golden Gophers". Thus, in the case of Category:1960 in sports in Michigan, removal of "Titans" from the category sorting at 1960 Detroit Titans football team would result in the Detroit Titans being elevated above the Detroit Lions. Alphabetical sorting should be preserved, and under an alphabetical scheme, Lions go before Titans. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue is the "standard" you may have observed in college football season articles was totally local and at odds with other parts of the category tree, even within college football. I see your point about Lions going before Titans where the short name "Detroit" is identical. So what do we do about Michigan and Michigan State? Does "Michigan State Spartans" go before "Michigan Wolverines"? Or do we need to put a comma or some other character in the sort keys, to sort first by short name, then by fight name, e.g "Detroit, Lions", "Detroit, Titans", "Michigan, Wolverines", and "Michigan State, Spartans"? Then we need to think about how to sort the various different college sports against one another. This is probably a topic that should be discussed in a forum where we can sync up all sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, the defaulsorts on which you are reverting my capitalization should just be deleted, right? There's no point in a default sort that defaults to the article name. That's already the default sort. No explicit restatement is needed. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Five points:
1. I agree with you that if the defaultsort simply restates the article name, it accomplishes nothing and could be eliminated with no harm done. That makes perfectly good sense.
3. With respect to nicknames in cat sorts, it sounds like we agree that the nicknames should be included for the reason outlined above. That is, nicknames are needed to ensure proper alphabetical sorting (i.e., Detroit Lions --> Detroit Pistons --> Detroit Red Wings --> Detroit Tigers --> Detroit Titans, or Miami Dolphins --> Miami Heat --> Miami Hurricanes, or Minnesota Golden Gophers --> Minnesota North Stars --> Minnesota Timberwolves --> Minnesota Twins) in state sports categories and perhaps other categories as well.
4. As for special cases like "Michigan Wolverines" and "Michigan State Spartans", I don't know if there is a technical fix. If so, that would be best. If there is not, I would have no objection to dropping the nicknames from the cat sorts in those narrow cases. What do you think?
5. As for coordinating these issues across other sports, I think these same principles should generally apply. If you want to open a broader discussion somewhere, let me know, and I'll be happy to offer my 2 cents.
Thanks for working cooperatively at this! Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay:@Jweiss11: Very interesting, though this appears to be tracking the major college classification rather than the University Division. The major college classification is something that dates back much farther to the 1930s. I believe it was tracked by the NCAA statistics bureau or something like that. Cbl62 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it does correspond to those teams that moved up and down Idaho etc. in the 1960s.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I wonder if they just treat "major" and "University Division" as interchangeable. If so, that could be our answer. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
And, yes, you seem to be right that the list tracks the contemporaneous press accounts of when teams were promoted to University Division. This looks like a good, reliable source in terms of when schools became classified as University Division. Thanks for digging this up, UCO. Cbl62 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, I think your current approach of simply striking teams from the University Division independent records templates is not quite the right one. If Pacific wasn't a member of the University Division in 1965, were they a member of the College Division? If so, they should be added to Template:1965 NCAA College Division independents football records, and then 1965 Pacific Tigers football team and Don Campora should be changed accordingly, and 1965 Pacific Tigers football team should have some sort of explanation about the change if the team's status differed from 1964. More generally, I think we should hold on these sort of changes until be have a better understand of what page 471 from this NCAA document means and can corroborate any given changes with contemporary accounts. Michigan and many other top programs are listed as major from 1937 to 1940 and again from 1946 on. Was there no simply no major classification from 1941 to 1945? Although Alabama and Centenary are listed as major through those years. There often are integrity problems with NCAA records like this as you will often find in many media guides for individual conferences and programs. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll address your questions separately.
"If Pacific wasn't a member of the University Division in 1965, were they a member of the College Division?" Yes. From everything I've read, NCAA football programs in the 1960s were "College Division" by default if they did not qualify for the "University Division"
I have now done the further cleanup that you suggested.Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"Was there no simply no major classification from 1941 to 1945?" I don' know but it seems unimportant because we don't divide templates for those years based on "major" or "minor" status.
As for the more general concern about the adequacy of the source, WP:V requires us to based the encyclopedia on reliable sources. The NCAA report is such a reliable source. As such, it should be followed unless there are other reliable sources reporting to the contrary. In this case, do you have a source showing that, contrary to what's reported in the NCAA guide, Pacific was in the University Division for the years I deleted? If so, let's discuss. If not, we ought to follow the reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, I notice you've been adding articles for college football seasons lately, though you're skipping around from college to college, a decade or two at a time. I have the media guides for the current Patriot League teams (Colgate, Bucknell, Fordham, Georgetown, Holy Cross, Lafayette, Lehigh), and access to some old newspaper databases online, and I think I would have fun filling in all the redlinks ... but I don't want to duplicate your effort, in case you have a bunch of pages prepared in sandboxes or offline or something. I know there's no WP:OWN-ership of any given topic but I don't want to step on any toes. ```t b w i l l i e`$1.25` 22:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Toll Booth Willie: There's lots of work to be done, and I welcome your participation. If you have certain teams you would like to claim, I have no problem with that, just let me know and I'll leave them be. Alternatively, if there are teams on which you would like to collaborate, I'm open to that, too. Let me know what you have in mind. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get to work this week on redlinks of those Patriot League teams. If I find that goes well I may expand into the Ivies, which is probably as far as I go. I'm not a huge CFB fan but I did used to attend Holy Cross games every week as an undergrad and recent-grad, most of which were against PL or Ivy opponents. ```t b w i l l i e`$1.25` 23:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Great. If I can help, or if you have any questions, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, I figure you might tackle Lehigh next after Lafayette. I just moved the 1901, 1909, and 1925 articles from "Engineers" to "Brown and White". Seems that "Engineers" came into use sometime in the early 1930s. The earliest reference to "Brown and White" I've found is 1901. So maybe the prior seasons should have no fight name? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems that some editor Proded several season articles including 1908 Wabash Little Giants football team among others. I didn't remove the tags because it seems like the Proder has a point but wanted to gauge your thoughts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks UCO2009bluejay. Looks like Murphanian already improved the article and deprodded. Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
While we are on the topic some 19th Century CCNY articles are Proded as well.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. CCNY was one of the earliest participants in college football, and these articles may be worth saving. Not sure but I'll have a look. Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you a heads-up, I am going to nominate Bob Man to FAC. I am going to include you in the nom, but feel free to take part in the review process as little or as much as you would like. Cheers! «Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I'll help where I can. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, I renamed the 1920, 1921 and 1922 Dayton football season article you recently created, as the "Dayton Flyers" moniker was not adopted until 1923. Prior to 1920, the school known as St. Mary's College. Dayton Flyers football, 1905–1909 and Dayton Flyers football, 1910–1919, should be renamed accordingly. But in the absence of a nickname, I'm not sure what the best names are. St. Marys (Ohio) football, 1905–1909 and St. Marys (Ohio) football, 1910–1919? Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you proposing St. Marys with no hyphen? Or is that just a typo? Cbl62 (talk)
I went ahead and moved per your suggestion except for the insertion of a hyphen in St. Mary's. Good catch. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the lack of an apostrophe was a typo. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, it seems Canisius was referred to as the "Blue and Gold" and "Gold and Blue" in its early days. I see the "Griffins" nickname starting in 1933 and "Golden Griffins" in 1938. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
My research in connection with 1936 Canisius Griffins football team led me to the non-Golden "Griffins" outcome. Not sure about the "Blue and Gold" bit. My searches from 1923 and 1927 did not reveal a commonly-used nickname but I can recheck in a bit; some media reports referred to them as "Urbanites" but that seems to be just a reflection of the fact that they were coached by Luke Urban. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
According to the school the Griffin mascot was introduced in 1932. I'm not sure exactly when the "Golden" part was added. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Cbl, head ups, the Scranton Royals were the St. Thomas Tomcats prior to 1938. And per 1962 John Carroll Blue Streaks football team, in the last few months I've built out a lot of the standings templates for smaller conferences. We have a lot of the early years for the Presidents' Athletic Conference, so it's worth checking so see if those exist to help complete the season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I just messed up with 1937 and am in process of moving. However, the common nickname seems to be Tommies rather that Tomcats. More research needed Cbl62 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: My initial search for 1937 (limited to the Scranton newspaper during the football season [Sep-Nov]) pulled 129 hits for "St. Thomas" & "Tommies" (here) and 29 hits for "St. Thomas" & "Tomcats" (here). Based on that 4-to-1 margin, I moved the article to 1937 St. Thomas Tommies (Pennsylvania) football team. The state designation appeared necessary to disambiguate in light of St. Thomas Tommies. Cbl62 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This, this and this indicate Ball State was part of the Midwest Conference in 1971 for football. Not clear, but was "Midwest Conference" a short form used in the press to refer to the Conference of Midwestern Universities?
Found a 1972 article referring to the Midwestern Conference as "now-defunct". Will go ahead and change its 1972 status to independent.
Newspaper sources confirm IIC membership in 1946. E.g., this. Will change the article accordingly.
Thanks for looking into this. Seems Ball State was College Division / Division II through 1974 and did not join Mid-American Conference play until 1975. See NCAA records: 1973, 1974. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, Southern Illinois was an independent from 1962 to 1976. They joined the Missouri Valley Conference in 1977. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
One more note on Southern Illinois. The program dropped from I-A to I-AA in 1982 with several other Missouri Valley Conference teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, Thank you for creating Hersh Martin (American football). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name Hersh Martin, by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 07:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Leave me alone. Brycenn (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Your initial edits involved creation of three new rivalry articles: Ohio State–Purdue football rivalry, Auburn–UAB football rivalry, Middle Tennessee–Vanderbilt football rivalry. While we welcome new editors with an interest in college football topics, these initial edits raise questions as to whether the topics satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. You should familiarize yourself with these guidelines.
You have repeatedly stricken my comments from the following Talk pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and User talk:UW Dawgs. It is a breach of decorum and good practice to strike another editor's comments from such talk pages. Can you please explain why you have done so?
Your comments above qualify as WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Such comments are a violation of Wikipedia policy and should be avoided.
Perfect. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, thank you for your kind words at WP:CFB. Thanks also, again, for the help in getting me started on this project and for your general non-WP:BITE-y attitude toward a newcomer.
One note -- I think you mixed up which barnstar was supposed to go to me and which was supposed to go to User:Murphanian777. I agree that the work s/he is doing, particularly on "obscure" programs and the easily overlooked WW II military teams, is valuable and impressive. ```t b w i l l i e`$1.25` 05:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes I agree with Toll Booth Willie, on both your kind and helpful disposition for new Wikipedians on the block, and that you may have switched up our barnstars. Murphanian777
Oops. Will fix now ... red face emoji. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see UB redlinks turning blue. If you end up going back to the mid-50s articles to add game cites, try to keep an eye out for mentions of where home games were played. Though UB made a big fanfare of leaving Civic Stadium after 1954, I found when sourcing 1958 Columbia Lions football team that they had played their Buffalo date at Civic Stadium -- apparently UB split its time between two home fields for at least that year, and I suspect others in that time frame. ```t b w i l l i e`$1.25` 05:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll try to keep that in mind. Cbl62 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Not planning to dip into the 1920s UB at this time. It was a pretty disastrous decade for the program, and I'm not sure about notability. Might be a situation where a decade article would be appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I am working in a sandbox to overhaul the 1947 NFL Draft page to look like the contemporary 2020 NFL Draft page, and while doing so I noticed a couple of things. The most notable is that Oklahoma and Missouri were in the MVIAA or Big Six. Yet both teams have different names for the conference with Missouri's erroneously calling it the Big Eight. I would like to change the documentation (or begin a discussion) for it but I cannot figure out how. Of note some other teams e.g. Northeastern State is listed as an NAIA independent (which didn't exist in 1946.) That leads me to believe that many smaller universities may have incorrect information. I have tracked the source as Template:College football conference but cannot see where the edits are being made. Any advice or help you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I would just be bold and fix what you can. When you refer to changing the documentation, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific? Cbl62 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean that I cannot see the documentation. I do not know where to locate the teams, or their conferences. What I see looks just like the page with no teams added (unlike the edit history) which when I review the page diffs look the exact same.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I just hit edit on the whole page rather than in the edit box on the page. (Facepalm)-Thank you.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for assuming good faith, but with a username as blatant as "UW Dawgs' Worst Nightmare" you probably should have blocked first and asked questions later. You also can just speedy delete pages created by such socks under WP:G5 (creation of a page by a banned user in violation of a ban), no need for an AfD. Eagles24/7(C) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: You're probably right. The evidence on this one was pretty clear. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I edited an article you created and noticed some basic grammar/style mistakes, so I would like to advise you so future mistakes will be avoided. First, when writing numbers, any number nine and under are to be spelled. Numbers greater than 10 are expressed using numerals. Also, please space only once after periods. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about the Jackie Lowther article. However, your edit changing "7 of 12 passes" to "seven of 12 passes" is erroneous. The relevant guideline (WP:MOSNUM) expressly states: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7 and 32, but not ages were five, seven and 32." Here, the numbers are comparable in that they both refer to Lowther's forward passes. Accordingly, the text was correct as originally written, i.e., with both figures expressed in figures. Regards, Cbl62 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
You are absolutely right on comparable values. There are different styles for comparable values, but you have accurately identified Wikipedia's style so I am happy to stand corrected! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
On 1 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sacco-Vanzetti Story, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1960 television play Sacco-Vanzetti Story was called "one of the most controversial ever seen on television"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sacco-Vanzetti Story. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sacco-Vanzetti Story), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, I see that you (like me) use Newspapers.com a lot to source old films. Just a reminder that the open-access aspect of the project means you should clip your sources so people can read them. You should also add the parameters: |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}{{open access}}</ref> at the end of each reference line. I did that for you in this article. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I generally do use the clipping function (which I love), and I'm not sure how I missed those two. Thanks for filling them in. I don't usually use the "open access" tag, though, as I have doubts about the permanency of the clippings (the clippings can be reversed for no reason by the clipper or when an account expires) and question whether the function really qualifies as "open access". Cbl62 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I hope my account never expires! Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On 5 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Plot to Kill Stalin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Soviet Union called The Plot to Kill Stalin "filthy slander" and retaliated by closing the CBS news bureau in Moscow? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Plot to Kill Stalin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Good morning, Cbl62. I see your DYK is scheduled to run the day after my DYK, Titanic International Society! I came across this NY Daily News photo from May 4, 1997.
Perhaps you might prefer it for the infobox image, fwiw? It looks like a publicity still, but alas, presumably non-free. JGHowestalk 12:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@JGHowes: Thanks for the note. Nice coincidence that our Titanic hooks will run on consecutive days. While the NY Daily News image is clearer, there is something very moving about current image -- an image from the kinescope depicting a family from steerage looking out into the night knowing there are no more lifeboats to save them. Cbl62 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't mean for you to think that I was doubting your skills. I just have a running dialogue with GRuban asking all sorts of questions about image licensing, about which I'm still not fully versed. He knows the rules and where to research copyright, and often helps me with my uploads.
Now that we're on the subject, why are some of your kinescope images fair use and some public domain? Aren't they all one or the other? Yoninah (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: With works created in the 1950s, they fall into the public domain if a copyright renewal has not been filed. Accordingly, when I am able to confirm through the Copyright Office database that no renewal has been filed, I use the public domain license. When a copyright renewal has been filed (or where it's unclear), I use the fair use license, and in such cases, select a screenshot that appears to be a good overall depiction of the production. Feel free to drop me a note if you have a question about any of the images. Best, 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a public domain image of her, and replaced this image with that version on the Lillian Brown article. I've tagged this image as replaceable fair use and orphaned. Not meaning to be critical of your edits. I was just able to find a public domain version. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Hammersoft. That solves the issue. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know you'd need assistance. The section is in Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Special occasion holding area. After the approved has arrived on the page, it should be moved to a October 31 header which at present doesn't exist, - you could create it. (I have no idea if Halloween hooks are somewhere else.) No rush. Just that I not do it myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have only just realised that you recently had your first successful FAC, and so, belatedly, and by the authority vested in me by myself, it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cbl, I didn't expect this note to get a ton of response, but I'm looking to get at least one additional opinion on this draft before I move it live. Since you do a lot of work with new articles over at DYK, do you mind glancing over it? I just don't know what's changed with notability requirements and NOTDICT since I was more active around here. Alyo(chat·edits) 04:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Weird case here. That user spent a month and 580+ edits working on that article in their userspace, moved it to mainspace, and then must have seen it was up for deletion and requested speedy deletion under WP:G7, despite the AFD seemingly going to pass as "keep." I assume the administrator who deleted it did not see it was also at AFD (and that it was likely to be kept), but I'm not sure if we can simply restore an article that the author requested G7'd and let it go through AFD properly. Eagles24/7(C) 05:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Sounds like the author got frustrated with the process after putting a helluva a lot of work into the article. Given the direction that the AfD was going, I think the article ought to be restored. Cbl62 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: I have no problem at all with the deletion being reversed so the AfD discussion can continue. – Athaenara ✉ 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. Unfortunately this has been a disappointing experience, perhaps my own fault for not understanding what Wikipedia was, though I don't think that it is clear until you create your first page. No sooner than I published the article that took nearly 100 hours to create, did an editor tag it for deletion on the grounds that it failed noteworthiness. The logic provided by the editor left me shaking my head. Hundreds of hours of effort and in 1 second -- this article has been tagged for deletion. The fact that I provided over 100 citations says something about it's noteworthiness. I came into to this excited to share facts with the world and was left with the impression of an unwelcoming, rigid, and frankly bizarre process managed in faceless anonymity. Enjoy the content, I'm done with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkey Day Classic (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, the pageviews formula includes both the day before and the day after when those days have a significant number of views. So we'll have to wait to see if The Great Reset qualifies when the "day after" pageviews are in. Best, Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thanks for the reminder. I made the adjustment. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I've just been going through the articles you created for Chabuca Granda Songs, and I just wanted to give you a friendly warning that the sources are way below what is needed to pass WP:NSONG. The descriptions of the songs' lyrics aren't sourced so they will be seen as original research/personal opinion, and links to track listings on AllMusic and Discogs only proves that cover versions of the songs exist - that doesn't make them notable, per WP:SONGCOVER. I haven't checked them all yet, but I suspect your other song article creations are similar... as it stands, they need major improvements, and there is every possibility that some other editor will come along and either redirect them or nominate them for deletion, because they are currently effectively unsourced. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Thank you for your note. Peru is this year celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Chabuca Granda -- perhaps the most important and influential songwriter in the country's history. Her body of work has been declared part of the "Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación" ("Cultural Heritage of the Nation"). As part of the 100th birthday celebration (and because the works of Latin women are so under-represented on English Wikipedia), I decided to create articles on five of her most important and notable works. I may have been too brief in providing sourcing and would like to work with you to ensure that all music project guidelines are satisfied. To that end, I began with an expansion of the article on "Lima de veras". Please have a look and let me know if the expansion is sufficient to satisfy your concerns. If so, I will proceed to expand in similar fashion the articles on "Fina estampa", "El puente de los suspiros", "Cardo o ceniza", and "José Antonio". Thanks again for your note and for any assistance you may be able to provide in improving these articles. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks... I'll look at them tomorrow, it was a bank holiday weekend where I am and I'm trying to catch up with work first. Richard3120 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. "Fina estampa" has now been expanded a bit as well. Cbl62 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that looks much better – thanks for taking the time to improve the articles, I'm pretty sure there's enough there now to avoid any nominations for deletion. Living in Colombia and getting frustrated myself at the lack of articles on Colombian artists and their songs and albums, I have an interest in seeing all music articles from South America improved. But I know it's much harder to find information on songs that aren't in the English language – there just isn't the same coverage, there aren't the music magazines that we're used to in the US and UK, and written works from the pre-internet era aren't as easy to find or obtain. I must admit I wasn't aware of Chabuca Granda, but I certainly know of Violeta Parra, and it's great to see articles on her. I just didn't want to see your work get deleted, that's all. Richard3120 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Thanks for the feedback. Colombia has certainly been a center of great music in recent years. I hope you have the opportunity to enjoy it. If you'd like to collaborate on any South American artists, let me know. Susana Baca is another of my favorites, and she's on my "to do" list. Cbl62 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Cbl62 can you update the stats at WP:DYKSTATS for King Ludwig Oak as I am unaware of the procedure to do so. Thank you.— Amkgp💬 05:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Amkgp: We have to wait for the data, to see if it qualifies. Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Amkgp: It did qualify, and I added it to DYKSTATS. Cbl62 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that if you are going to create a navbox template (and one was certainly justified for Jim Reeves), it needs to be added to every article listed in the navbox, otherwise there's not much point in creating the template. Also, some of the articles you created for Reeves' albums, like Jim Reeves and Tall Tales and Short Tempers don't currently demonstrate any notability for the album, they just say the album exists. I know the latter contains a hit single, but that just shows the song was notable, not the album.
You also need to add some of the new song articles you created to the existing navbox templates for the artists, e.g. "Invitation to the Blues" needs to be added to {{Ray Price}}, "Stairway of Love" needs to be added to {{Marty Robbins}}, "Geisha Girl" needs to be added to {{Hank Locklin}}, etc. etc.... I think you need to go back over everything you've created over the last couple of weeks and make sure they are included in the relevant artist navboxes. Richard3120 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Fair point on the navboxes. I will make a sweep through the prior work and add them. Funny you mention Ray Price, I was going to roll out articles on his albums over the next day or so (and will update his navbox as I go).
As for the Reeves albums, I limited my article creation to his major albums. One of the problems in the country music field is that the album chart did not begin until 1964, so there's no chart information for the early Reeves' albums ... but the two you referenced were major releases. If need be, should someone want to challenge notability, I could search through Newspapers.com for reviews and such.
I get it, I personally find it a big problem that music articles on Wikipedia are heavily biased towards records post-2000, when everything started becoming available on the internet and it was easy to look up information. When you have to go back before that, it becomes a lot harder, because many sources are only available in print so access is more difficult. And you are right, there weren't many established charts available before the 1970s, except in the US, UK, Germany and Norway (and the UK and Germany charts are "retrospective"), so basing notability on chart positions also becomes a lot harder.
As to your other question, I'm not sure... I think people do it when the navbox "looks" too big, but I'm not sure there's any rule about it. I could be wrong, though. Richard3120 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to say that I noticed you left posts on users' pages congratulating them for making the monthly stats list. I think that's a very nice gesture, both because you're nice and also because many users don't seem to be paying attention to their pageviews. Best, Yoninah (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, @Yoninah: When we put a lot of effort into an article, it's nice to know that people have noticed. The monthly DYKSTATS list is objective proof that others have noticed. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I left the Vivianne Miedema hook on the DYKSTATS December list because I didn't want to get into an edit war with the one who posted it there. But it didn't belong there, as I noted in my edit summary, and I was waiting for you to delete it. So thank you for doing that. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. After removing it, I got confused by the note about the 12-hour queue and accordingly re-added it ... then realized it doesn't qualify, even at the 12-hour threshold, and removed again. Sorry for my apparent waffling on that one, but it's now as it should be. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
On 28 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Filipino Baby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Filipino Baby", a song about a sailor's love for a Filipino girl, described as "my treasure and my pet", was a top-five hit for three different artists in 1946? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Filipino Baby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Filipino Baby), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
; see Talk:Darrell Evans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
