User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 6

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
•   Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
•   ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
•   Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
•   Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
•   The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
•   Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
•   Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
•   Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
•   Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Jackson, Mississippi you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Jackson, Mississippi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm, hope you're well. I was wondering if I could interest you in providing a GA review for Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln— it's the 'crown jewel' in Whitman's lincoln poetry and would benefit from a really competent review (which you could certainly provide). If you don't have the time or interest, no worries. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Eddie891: - Sure! I'll get to it within the next couple days. Hog Farm _Talk 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Just an update since you've reviewed a few of these articles, I've nominated a good topic at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln/archive1. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm, thanks again for reviewing the Stephen Larigaudelle Dubuisson GAN. That article was one of the final batch of GANs to (hopefully) round out a Good topic of 42 articles. I have 4 GANs left, which I keep track of here. If you're interested in reviewing any of others, I'd absolutely appreciate it. Ergo Sum 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to get a couple done over the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 18:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi - thanks for bringing the Linn County NRHP article to FAC. I will likewise implement some of the suggestions to the Columbus list, which I am trying to make as perfect and up-to-date as possible. How I tackle some of the problems may interest you too. Best, ɱ (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think I'll probably copy your way of adding the color key, which will really help. If we can figure out how to get a workable solution for the templates, that will make it a lot easier to get these to higher quality levels. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm. I was wondering if I couldn't convince you to join the unofficial Wikimedia Discord server? It's fairly active and there are plenty of faces (well, avatars) you might recognize, and the more's the merrier, as they say. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Flalf wanted me to remember to tell you, "OY BUCKAROO GET ON THE COMMUNITY DISCORD!". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good sir Vami, may I present Template:Citation needed. Flalf^Talk 05:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invite, but I don't discord. This site takes up enough of my time as it is, and I prefer to keep things onwiki as much as possible. Hog Farm _Talk 06:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Disheartening, but perfectly understandably. Hope to collaborate with you on Trans-Mississippi ACW articles in the future, as I'm going to be active in Texas. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

God damn it I thought it already was put in a section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CPA-5: - replied. Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hog Farm! Noticed you are a current WikiCup participant so I wanted to reach out to see if you could possibly contribute to the MAX Orange Line FAC. It's not attracted many users as I had hoped so I would greatly appreciate your comments, if you have time. --truflip99 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've been running through the PRODs recently and I've seen a lot of unincorporated communities being proposed. Is there some movement I'm out of the loop on? Anyway, I was wondering what your opinion on redirecting these to their counties instead of deleting them is (e.g. Surprise Hill, Virginia redirects to Northumberland County, Virginia). I recognise that they may not be mentioned in the target article, but they remain plausible search terms insomuch as they all had articles for over a decade. I've always preferred redirection over deletion. Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Anarchyte: - The closest thing to a movement going on would be the realization, explained at WP:GNIS, that probably over 10,000 one and two-liner stubs were mass created from a database, often without doing any sort of other checking to see what is going on. It also turns out that that database has a tendency to call things "populated places" that are not populated places. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prettyman, Missouri for what a lot of these "unincorporated communities" are. I think there are some cases where redirection or merging is appropriate, but for a lot of these, I frankly don't think the redirect is useful. I'm approaching this from a thought process of "would what this feature really is be significant enough to mention in the country article". Surprise Hill is a maybe - it's a named hill with an informal community on it, so that might be significant. But looking through some of the other ones: Moores Mill, Virginia is a literal mill site. Mills were incredibly common in the 1800s, so why would that specific one be significant enough for a redirect? The source link for Pinehurts, Virginia doesn't work, and my WP:BEFORE search brought up nothing. I don't think it's worth a redirect if we can't even verify its existence. Manchester, Richmond County, Virginia doesn't actually exist, no need to redirect. Moon Corner, Virginia is a named road junction with nothing there and no historical significance to be found. I'm not sure why an individual road junction with no significance should have a redirect. Many of the other ones I've prodded are subdivisions/housing developments/apartment buildings/trailer parks. There are hundreds of such type things in any city the size of Richmond or Louisville, Kentucky, or Bakersfield, California. I'm not sure why they would have any individual significance for the most part. Hog Farm _Talk 20:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess as a TL;DR, the ones that users have been PRODding/AFDing lately are generally false content: these sites are generally either suburban subdivisions which fail WP:GEOLAND or other features that are not, and never have been, "unincorporated communities". Some of these may be worth a redirect, but at least I don't see why individual mills, road junctions, generic housing developments, or nonexistent/unverifiable places would have redirects. You may disagree, though. I guess I just feel strongly about this: back in high school, I read a Wikipedia article about an "unincorporated community" in the area, and believed that there had actually been a historic community there. That article has since been deleted as part of the cleanup process - it was really where somebody had named barn in the early 1900s. I was misled by negligent article mass-creation. If this gives you any reassurance, I've been searching these fairly closely, and avoiding PRODding or AFDding anything that seems to have ever been considered a stand-alone community. I won't object if you want to redirect Surprise Hill, but I'm not sure how useful it would be with no mention. In my opinion, most of these are either legitimate sites that probably deserve an article, which I've been leaving alone, or false or insignificant features that frankly don't warrant a mention in the encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 20:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alexander Bielaski 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 Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Alexander Bielaski you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Alexander Bielaski for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buidhe -- Buidhe (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the 4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 28, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the article, introduced: "With Landis's Missouri Battery and Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment already at FA, I'm shooting to complete the trifecta of Missouri Confederate military branches with an infantry unit. The 4th existed for about six months before being shredded at the Second Battle of Corinth and consolidated with another unit. It's somewhat nonstandard flag is held by a museum."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Battle of Milliken's Bend you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Milliken's Bend for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for reviewing Battle of Droop Mountain. This was a pleasant surprise, since I am familiar with your good quality work—and I was afraid it might be months before someone looked at Droop Mountain. TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martensdale, California 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 JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Martensdale, California you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Martensdale, California for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JPxG -- JPxG (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Battle of Independence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Blue River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having seen User:Hog Farm/GNIS Cleanup/Missouri I wonder whether {{On AFD}} will make your life easier. It has an optional second parameter for linking to second discussions and batched nominations. Uncle G (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Uncle G: - Thanks for pointing that out to me. As to the Missouri one, the more research I did, the more I began to realize that most of the Missouri ones are, in fact, the site of legitimate historical communities, so that specific user subpage I've been considering just deleting. It may be useful for a few of the other states - there's a lot of questionable stuff in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. Of course, many of the places are notable, even if they don't look like that on the surface (I recently expanded Martensdale, California from a three-liner), but a number of these seem to be mass-production errors. Hog Farm _Talk 20:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that we both seem to be interested in AFDing non-notable unincorporated communities and other places, so I was wondering if we could compare notes about who the creators of these articles are. ( Since, as seen on AN, if there are users who have created many non notable articles they can be sanctioned. ) I noticed that the super-editor Ser Amantio de Nicolao has created a lot of non-notable incorporated community articles, at least in Virginia, and I was wondering if he is the creator of a lot of non-notable articles you have found as well, or if it is mainly other people. ( Obviously it would be very difficult and not necessarily a good thing to sanction the most prolific editor of all time, but I'm just trying to get a feel for how many not-notable articles he has created. ) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jackattack1597: - I've talked to Ser Amantio about these, and he agrees that most of these are non-notable. He's just really busy and not familiar enough with the sources to be able to prune them himself. He has no objection to the deletion of the non-notable ones, and told me he is okay with not being notified for these. An honest mistake made 10 years ago, and not a behavioral problem at all. The other big one I'm aware of is User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84, who is long gone. Vanished User primarily worked in Kentucky and West Virginia, as well as with names they viewed as unusual, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spunky Puddle, Ohio. I will note that some of these Virginia places are the sites of old 1700s and 1800s communities, so be sure to do a good WP:BEFORE. Anything will "mill" or "corner" in the title is probably NN, though. Gilliam created a bunch of articles, but he at least cross-checked two sources in most cases, so there's a much higher legitimacy rate there. Carlos is the only stub-mass creator in the topic that is really problematic, as the others are either higher-quality, recognize the error and are fine with deletion, or long gone. Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's good to know that Carlos is the only problematic creator, and the others don't really object much to the deletions or have chronic creation problems. Also, what deletion method do you usually use for most of the unincorporated communities? AFD, Proposed deletion, or speedy deletion?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jackattack1597: - Depends on the place. None of these will qualify for speedy except in very rare cases (copyright violations or reposting of material previously deleted at AFD). Most of the Virginia corners were part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, which was closed because nominating 85 articles at the same time is too many, so they are ineligible for PROD. If I can tell that something is non-notable with pretty good certainty, PROD is the way to go, but if there's doubt, either AFD or just let it be. As a note, the PROD system can hold up under having quite a few PRODs, but nominate a bunch in a single day, and you risk having more than AFD can handle at a time. Hog Farm _Talk 23:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Laurel Grove, Pittsylvania County, Virginia used to be a post office, apparently.^[1]

• Baldwin, Thomas; Thomas, J. (1854). A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Uncle G: - Looked into it myself in the sources I conduct my BEFORE searches with. Also had a school, church, and "community league". Won a community improvement contest in 1960, and had enough people in the 1920s to have a community party with 200 attendees. Quite a bit of coverage out there for that one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I wasn't nominating it for deletion. ☺ I was fishing for a reaction to that source, and to whether changing "is an unincorporated community" to "was a post office" was worthwhile. It makes the content more easily verifiable, but it might cause more challenges. ("I haven't researched it at all; but the article says it's just a post office.") There's probably something that can be done using Baldwin & Thomas 1854 and its ilk to help people who want to expand stubs. It's a question of what. Maybe we could cite the old gazetteers in a further reading section, if we are comfortable with them. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks like ARBCOM will be necessary. I think the case request should be short and straightforward.

1. Carlossuarez46, long ago, mass-created articles with insufficient sourcing; some may effectively be hoaxes, claiming that something which is not a village is a village.
2. Carlossuarez46 has violated ADMINACCT in his responses to the community's attempt to clean this up.
3. Carlossuarez46 has made personal attacks.
4. As only ARBCOM can de-sysop, the case is ripe for arbitration.

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. I've never been involved with ARBCOM before. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Hog Farm, would you be interested in sending out a Mass Message for the reviewing drive? PM seems very busy with IRL stuff (I pinged him on 21 March). It's not super complicated, but I can do it if you aren't comfortable. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Eddie891: - I'm perfectly comfortable sending out a mass message, so long as there's instructions. If I can get some instructions on how to do that, I'll send the mass message after the accounting test I have in about an hour. Hog Farm _Talk 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Great to hear. Apologies for the brevity-- I'm out for the next six hours reviewing (re-learning?) various lifesaving techniques IRL, but have a read through this and mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage and perhaps m:MassMessage. The Milhist list is here and just draw on past messages. I've found the instructions pretty easy to follow, good luck. Sorry again that I don't have the time to go into more detail. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It has been queued. Fingers crossed ... Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh God that's uglier than I thought it would be. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks great, thanks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will start working up a quarter-end summary for your input; will let you know when I have something sandboxed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Draft at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I think it looks fine overall. Out of curiosity, where will this be placed? The one thing I can think to add would be the statistic that of the 2010-2015, the ratio is 6 delisted:22 satisfactory (78.5% satis) while with the older ones, it is 57:55 (49.1% satis), which kinda underscores the need for this in the oldest ones. There may be good reasons for not including that, though. Hog Farm _Talk 16:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Great suggestion! The idea is to put it at FAC, FAR, TFA and URFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

    Sounds good to me. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Several motions have been proposed at the case request that you filed related to Carlossuarez46. You may comment on them in your section at the case request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have been trouted for: Sending a mass message to 2000+ users stating that April had 31 days. Hog Farm _Talk 19:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yea? Well, I'm a dork, and I've got the t-shirt to prove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply