User talk:Sbmeirow/Archive/2016

Menu

1. User Home
2. User Talk Home
3. User Talk Archive Home

Etymology

I understand your thinking, but as the section itself says: "However, etymology – as a modern scientific study of place names – is not a part of the settlement's development through the ages.britannica.com", so it is not history as such. Where appropriate we should deal in the history section with the names of places, but when the details become linguistic rather than historic, it is inappropriate to deal with that in the history section. I will try different wording to make that clearer. User:SilkTork 09:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

banners....

Yes, banners exist on other pages, but when there is a non conference game in the middle of conference play then you cannot have a banner because the existence of that banner says "everything under me is a conference game", which in this instance is not true. So simply do not have it. Even marking it as a non conference game in the game name column is not acceptable. There are zero pages where that is done so don't do it. So yes, other pages can do it but this page this season cannot do it. Please do not revert it. User:Bsuorangecrush 03:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

city/town designations

I disagree with your recent edits to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Morgan Hill. Check out List_of_cities_and_towns_in_California, which explains that each municipality chooses to call itself a city or a town. While those designations have no legal significance, they matter a lot to the municipalities, as an issue of protocol. Talk to any Los Gatos official about the "City of Los Gatos" and he or she will promptly correct you. These are ceremonial designations that the municipalities take seriously, no different than talking about "the State of California" or "the Commonwealth of Massachusetts". They're worth retaining in the articles. User:JGriffithSV 18:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but NO. These articles are about the entire city as a whole, not just the legal government entity. The ONLY reason municipalities use "City of XYZ" is because it's their legal incorporated name, but as I said before, this article is NOT about ONLY just the legal entity. Wikipedia is NOT a legal document, instead it uses common terms, thus why the legal name is not important in the intro section, instead it belongs in the "government section". Almost no one use the phrase "I'm going to the City of Sunnyvale" in conversation, instead they use the phrase "I'm going to Sunnyvale". As I stated before, this is NOT a legal document and it's NOT only about the legal entity, thus it shouldn't use silly legal language in the intro. • User:Sbmeirow • 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how "City of Sunnyvale" is any different from the City of Los Angeles, the Republic of Belarus, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the City and County of San Francisco, all of which are written up in exactly the same way. Nobody says "I'm going to <whatever>" in these cases either, yet... BTW, you meant "official name", not "legal name".

Some of those articles may need to be fixed, because they aren't encyclopedic, see http://www.britannica.com/place/Los-Angeles-California • User:Sbmeirow • 08:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant "legal name", because incorporated cities are "municipal corporations", thus must have some legal name associated to it. The common naming format for most municipal corporations in the USA is "City of XYZ" or other words instead of City in some states. • User:Sbmeirow • 08:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In a few cases the "City of" is helpful in text where the city name is a generic word that could be mistaken when you don't put "City of" in front of it. For example, "City of Industry" in the LA metro area is one of those problem city names, thus is why you hear it called "City of Industry" quite often in the news. The more unique the name, the less important is the need to for "City of" in text or audio. • User:Sbmeirow • 08:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, even if you're right, you didn't actually move the content to the "government section" on any of the three pages you edited - you just deleted the content. WP:EDIT requires you to try to fix content before simply deleting it.User:JGriffithSV 07:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

When I did the edit, I felt it wasn't needed in the intro, thus deleting it was my fix. It makes sense for it to optionally be in the "government" section. Since it is the legal name of the governing authority, then it would be hard to argue that it should never be put in that section. I won't go out of my way to add it to the government section, but I now don't plan to remove it from that section either. • User:Sbmeirow • 08:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Leith, North Dakota

I think you misunderstood my edit to Leith, North Dakota. Wp:Lead states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies'' A majority of people that come to the Leith article will come to it because of the Craig Cobb situation, thus it should be covered in the lead. --User:Deathawk 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wp:Lead is needed when the article is long and the topic isn't near the top. When I open that article, without scrolling, I can see "White nationalists" in the Table of Contents and I can see the entire text of that section on the screen too. This article is so short that it's impossible to miss Craig Cobb. The duplication of information in the lead is meant for long articles where it's very easy to miss important information further down into the article. • User:Sbmeirow • 06:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:See also and talk page discussion. No redlinks.

Says 'A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles' and 'The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)' I removed your non link entries in two articles. You either need to write the article or put the list somewhere other than in the See also section of the article.User:WilliamJE 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

uhhhhhhhh, where the heck is the article in question? • User:Sbmeirow • 03:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

USGS GNIS

Hey Sbmeirow - Regarding Cherokee, Oklahoma comments "GNIS "Populated Place" is what is used as the default for all cities in USA articles", I will defer to your far greater experience, but I would still like to educate myself about this and related geographic standards of which I was apparently unaware. Can you point me to where these are documented so I can brush up? Thanks, User:Jsniessen 13:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Originally, ten's of thousands of USA community articles were created/updated with an automated "bot" program pulling from government databases. From my experience editing USA community articles, it appears that "Populated Place" GNIS number was chosen. If you come across any articles that isn't using "Populated Place", then likely someone manually changed it, and it should be changed back. Though I'm not aware of any articles or documents that talk about why "populated place" was chosen, I do remember there is some Wikipedia edit recommendation to "do things in a similar way across articles", meaning that if a bunch of articles do it one way, then by default you should try to keep it the same, unless a newer guideline changes it. Its not that we can't change things, but we need a good reason to change them. In this case, since ten's of thousands of articles are using "populated place" GNIS number, then we should keep using it to make all articles uniform. • User:Sbmeirow • 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As for creating NEW USA community articles and adding NEW infobox to CDP / unincorporated / ghost town articles, I have continued to use "Populated Place" as the default when searching for a GNIS to use in these situations. For ghost towns, sometimes there won't be a "Populated Place" entry in the GNIS database, so I've chosen other GNIS numbers such as cemeteries or churches because it was either use them or use nothing. Though GNIS is pretty good, it isn't perfect, because I've come across a small number of mistakes, and reported them back to GNIS. Most mistakes that I've found are related to buildings and landmarks, and in all situations after I reported mistakes, it did get fixed in the following weeks/months. • User:Sbmeirow • 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In general, for editing USA community articles, you should use Wikipedia:USCITY guideline as a high-level reference. It's a basic guide of how to make all USA community articles "look similar". You should use it for all types of populated or previously populated places in the USA, such as cities, towns, villages, unincorporated communities, ghost towns, neighborhoods within cities, and other types of populated places that I haven't listed. County articles are different. • User:Sbmeirow • 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

When I first started editing articles, I edited communities where I've lived and nearby cities, because I actually had some knowledge of those areas, thus it was easier to add and fix those articles. Over time, I expanded outward to a point where I've since edited every city article in Kansas, plus a large number of unincorporated communities and ghost towns in Kansas, since that point I started watching random cities around the USA to learn how editors are taking care of cities in other states. Outside of Kansas, I'm watching a dozen or more random cities in each state that border Kansas, then fewer in each state further away from Kansas. Every so often, I'll change which cities that I WATCH in other states. The only reason you ran into me at Cherokee, Oklahoma article is that it's one of the random articles that I watch in Oklahoma. • User:Sbmeirow • 22:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that info. I had recently noticed Wikipedia:USCITY - it has a lot to chew on. User:Jsniessen 16:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

I have no idea why you went across Kansas from county to county adding the exact same unsourced content. I waste hours each week cleaning this sort of spam up from less experienced editors. I'd ask you to remove the numerous identical unsourced history sections you have added until you can find a source. Thanks. User:Magnolia677 08:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for slandering me by calling "related edits" SPAM. The source is the wiki-linked articles. You wasting your own time isn't my problem, because you could've came here first and asked me to take care of it without being a douche about it. I can't do it right now, later. • User:Sbmeirow • 14:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Kansas Department of Transportation

Sorry, I was being lazy. I've added a new section and moved the ref. -- User:Kendrick7 23:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! • User:Sbmeirow • 23:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, User:Trizek (WMF) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Warnings