Knowledge talk:WikiProject California/Archive 6

2748: 936: 1843: 4372: 3196:). Phew, that was exhausting. I've found redirect targets for a lot of the non-notables, but not all of them. That's only one county in one state, and several CA counties are far far worse. Kern in particular looks nightmarish to clean up. This is gonna take a lot of time and a lot of manpower. Soon I'll redirect the ones with suitable targets and PROD or batch AfD the rest; the ones with no redirect targets are so non-notable (many of them are literally just someone's last name that ended up on an early map) that I truly don't see the point of even putting them into a list. 1272: 2772: 3925:

article-creation led to the situation where until this clean-up project started there were counties in California with more than twice as many "ghost towns" listed than there were presently inhabited communities – a plainly ridiculous situation. The overwhelming majority of these "Ghost towns" turn out to be, on closer inspection, railway sidings, road/rail junctions, farms, factories, warehouses, wharves, camps, mines, individual buildings etc. Of the remainder many are actually just different names for presently-existing communities.

2779: 2274: 4706: 4462: 4271: 2497: 2241: 1468: 4796: 2524: 4426: 357: 31: 2302: 3673: 2460: 1732: 2267: 946: 2366: 1429: 4091:(a) The term may refer to the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada OR California's eastern counties. Since the fault zone is described as located in "the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada," the term "eastern slope" must refer to the eastern counties. (b) However, this is too general a description. If the fault zone is a suture threaded through the Smartville Block, then specific counties need to be cited. 3861:, so I added an explanation to the Sheridan page and redirected. From what I've seen (unless I missed something), this cleanup has been conducted in a reasonable and not overboard manner. The fact that over a thousand of these has been deleted over the course of several months is because almost 2,000 of these were mass-created with no real regard for accuracy or how the source actually describes these places. 3964:

non-verifiable places in that county could be compiled (maybe in a subpage of this project?). Then we could go over that list, find sources if required. Do a local consensus to redirect. For those that contain some information to be salvaged, we could merge/redirect it. If done in a systematic manner, it also allows someone to check later and recover an article (in case it is deleted/redirected incorrectly)--

830: 1751: 4690: 4675: 4645: 4532: 4481: 4290: 3741: 219: 204: 189: 174: 159: 144: 1975: 1302: 329: 3706: 3648: 386: 3786:.) Some are notable as former mining camps, stagecoach stops, historical water sources, etc. Perhaps the weeding-out process could be conducted differently. I feel quite strongly that lesser known places associated with indigenous peoples' history belong in this encyclopedia. I realize that would slow down the process of stub clean up, but I think its better in the long run. 4019:. The maps and GNIS aren't enough to show a place as notable, but they can identify a lot of the non-community features. I've been able to diagnose stubs as non-community features such as railroad sidings, individual ranches, and in a couple cases natural features such as ponds or canals misentered into GNIS as communities. I have access to newspapers.com through 1681: 3888:

notability – and prodded every one; the ones from yesterday are the final batch of those, but there are still many supposed "unincorporated communities" and non-obvious former ones still to go (not to mention other states). The main places list previously included the full list before being split by letter so I think if the redirects were to the subpages like

2434:. For example, artificial lakes that were created in the 20th Century, when English was now the common/majority language in California. I have no objections for those features whose names existed when they were still in Native American/Spanish/Mexican/etc. rule, per se. But again, we should not automatically assume literal English-to-Spanish translations. 3807:

of the problem created by massive-scale negligent article-creation. It is not that the person who created the majority of these articles was purposefully vandalizing the encyclopedia, it is simply that, despite being an admin at the time, they did not care about any of the rules in place even at the time they were doing it (2009) regarding notability.

3782:, and the good suggestions – merge, redirect, or compile list articles of the lesser known places. The ones that I am concerned about are those places that are no longer "settlements" but in the past were used by Native Americans (some of which were actual villages), or those that historically were settlements but entirely burned down (such as 3825:

A very obvious way to avoid having to go through these one-by-one would be for the creator of the vast majority of the problematic articles numbering in the thousands, Carlossuarez46, to speedy-delete the ones that have not been substantially edited since they created them in 2009. However, they have

3502:

I made a few formatting and punctuation changes, and broke up the last long paragraph into smaller pieces. If you don't agree with my changes, you are welcome to revert them. A couple final suggestions: 1) find a way to break up the sentence that starts "In 2017 the City increased ...". That sentence

1942:

After reviewing this project's page and finding an apparent period of inactivity on this project, I'm going to go ahead and preemptively mark this article as B-class. Please re-categorize the article at any time, dis-categorize it for re-assessment later, or discuss it as necessary at any time. Thank

870:

when I commented that it has been difficult to maintain regular active participants here, as more people seem to want to focus on more specific topics) -- so even if you do get sufficient supporters here to "secede from WP:USPLACE", will they be active when someone challenges it later? The only thing

4197:

Yeah, there's the activity concern is one issue, but I'm really here because of the duplication. I've recently been working on a group of pages at the eastern end of Los Angeles County—is that the L.A. task force, the Inland Empire task force, the SoCal task force, or all three? It's not immediately

4182:

Certainly no objection here. My only concern is that this Wikiproject does not seem particularly active even at the highest levels so it made sense to try and consolidate and clean things up a bit to centralize things and hopefully bring more editors together. But I don't feel strongly about that,

4145:

Honestly I'd much prefer to attempt to rehabilitate them than just toss them aside, especially since it would probably be more work in the long-run to adjust the documentation everywhere and back-end tooling (templates, assessment, categories, etc.) as it would to brainstorm some ways of getting the

3928:

Please note that I am far from a deletionist, my record at AFD was (rarely for people who do a lot of work there) more keep !votes than delete !votes until I started working on this clean-up project. My initial response was "Surely GNIS and Durham are reliable sources? Why are people deleting these

3817:

I hope the others will not object if I say that we are very alive to the problem of these PRODs/AFDs clogging up the various forums that have to deal with them and creating unnecessary work for admins. Indeed I and others have pointed out that this is the effect of these deletions having to be done

3806:

Very happy to discuss ways of dealing with this issue. However, we should get it straight first that I (and I believe the other people working on this issue) are not simply deleting articles willy-nilly without first checking that they cannot be saved. What we are struggling with is the sheer scale

3478:

I think your changes have improved your section of the article. Maybe some detailed copy editing would be helpful, but I'm probably not the right person for that. I was left with one question. It sounds like the problem started in 2013, but it does not explain what happened to trigger this. Is it a

2895:

Ah good point, I didn't realize that the two museums technically have the same name. I think in that case, using "(California)" and "(Minnesota)" at the end of each title would be appropriate, rather than being after commas. There's also the question of whether the article titles should call each

1069:

More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may

3887:

reverted my first batch of redirects and prodded them instead. I have now gone though every single "former settlement" cited only to Durham's California Geographic Named – most of which are misrepresentations, as Durham mentions "a place" on a map or a post office rather than a settlement of any

3848:

To second FOARP, we've been going through these looking at the merits of each individually, as far as I'm aware of. I personally have a four or five-part test to go through the California ones that I apply to them. I'm unaware of a single one that I've checked against my test and failed every

3289:

Finally, I don't know what other people's deletion standards are (I'm pretty inclusionist, but a lot of this stuff just clutters up the encyclopedia), but the rule of thumb I'm using is if it were ever a populated community (not a road station or railway depot or whatever, an actual community –

2853:

I also think that having ", California" in the article title is unnecessary given that there presumably isn't another museum with the exact same name as this one, unless the actual name of the museum includes ", California" at the end. But I will hold off on moving the article to allow for more

2747: 3963:

Thank you everyone for your responses. I understand that non verifiable information should not be part of Knowledge and the cleanup is actually a good step to take. My concern is just to reduce the speed a bit. Like maybe, do it county by county. It would be helpful if, let's say a list of all

2068:

Thanks for the efforts to improve the article. I have elevated the article to C class as I believe it does not meet all B class criteria. I hope this helps, and if there is anything I can do to support efforts in content improvement within the scope of WikiProject San Diego please feel free to

3924:

I favour redirection only because it can be done in bulk and results in less harmful articles. Ultimately a non-notable place just shouldn't have an article on here, though, and made-up "ghost towns" and "unincorporated communities" should be nuked with extreme prejudice. Carlos's negligent

3285:

into the root directory for further work, and move my work so far to there from my userspace. If people are interested in working on it in other states, we could move it to the USA wikiproject later on. California is far from the only state with this problem, even if we have it worse than

3929:

articles?" until I saw the scale of what Carlos had done, and how very little time had been spent in the creation of each article (maybe ~1-2 minutes for each at most?). Even for PRODs we are probably spending 2-3 times longer simply PRODing the article than Carlos did creating them!

2187: 3016:

Thanks for asking. I believe the proper place for a discussion is on the Talk page of that article. Can you go over there and start a discussion, explaining how you would do that? Would it be a separate column in the list, or marking with asterisks, or a new list? Sincerely,

3450:

4) Normally external links (links that take you outside Knowledge) are not acceptable when they are imbedded within the body of the article. If necessary to support the article, they can be placed in a separate section at the end of the article called "External links". See

3261:

looks pretty good. I'm sure I could code up a JS script to automate turning county navboxes into tables of that format, with the coords and all. Then for the ones that are notable, we can provide a sentence or two description in its entry in the table, and then link to its

3479:

growing population of animals, are they moving south for some reason, or are there other factors involved? If you don't know, that is fine, but it might be helpful to explain that if you do know. Good luck with your assignment, and thank you for contributing to Knowledge.

1929: 3932:

My personal view is that Carlo's behaviour reverses the presumption that we should assume they were acting in good faith when they created these articles: they plainly weren't. I don't like engaging in mind-reading but, forced to guess, I think it was their ranking on

407: 3909:

because Ash Log as a toponym is barely even verifiable, much less notable. Redirection would work fine for a lot of these place stubs, but a few just need deleted as there's nothing useful about peddling GNIS errors when there was never anything at the site at all.

3822:, where a clear consensus to delete all was not acted on). No-one will bother doing all the work of preparing a bulk deletion if in every occasion it turns out to be pointless. Instead they will use forums where at least deletion can occur (e.g., PRODs/AFDs). 4156:}} for my test case with the invitation template, among others) would like to see if I can enlist a few others volunteers to help me spread them around once everything's polished up nice and shiny. Does anyone have a problem with trying that approach first? 891:(which fall under the so-called 'AP Stylebook rule'), their article titles need the state appended to them". But then, again because of the lack of regular active participants here, there are not really any WikiProject-specific guidelines here anyway. 1591:

says, I’m aware I shouldn’t edit directly, that’s why I’m trying to get help via a request for edits. Per my note above, I work for Tides which is why I’m interested in the article, and I want to help fix some issues. Can either of you help? Thanks,

3732: 1124: 4444: 4281: 1805:

Pinging back to see if anyone would be able to look at a couple of small additions to this article? The main update has been completed, but there is a new source that can be added, so I've opened a small edit request. Thanks in advance!

1004:

Not really. It showed that there is a school, reservoir, and a gulch in the area named Spring Valley, just as I found on maps. I'm looking for a little more historical context. I did find a newspaper article on the mining ghost town of

4681: 3446:

3) I recommend including a very brief definition of "hauling out" when you first use it in the body. I know you have a link in the lead of the article, but I think a brief clarifying definition is always helpful for such an unusual

2957: 4023:, so I use that as the third step. In places where there are old newspapers on the site (some going back into the 1800s), you can generally figure out what something is. Step four is checking the google books preview of 4523: 3103:

It's probably best to avoid too many runs through AfD to avoid wasting everyone's time. I'd envision starting out with PRODs and then doing large batch AfDs of the ones where the PROD gets removed for whatever reason.

4472: 1279: 4746: 2251: 1049: 3994:. I will continue to keep an eye out for stubs that are either associated with historical indigenous settlements or with water sources (like hot springs :-) ), and will improve them if I can find reliable sources. 3266: 1833: 854:, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, 4636: 1088: 274:

2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Knowledge articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see

2615: 3278: 1795: 4452: 4261: 2487: 2231: 4825: 840: 3442:

2) The section is long enough, you might want to organize it into subsections so people can zero in on what they are most interested in about the controversy, but the length doesn't necessarily require

3079:

came up with an idea: merge all of the GNIS stubs into a single list article, one per county. I personally think this is an excellent idea, and would be willing to do this for a few counties in Eastern

1458: 4349: 3853:

is either misinterpreted or fabricated in most of its usages. Additionally, some redirections/mergers are going on, but aren't as visible. Such as when I determined through research that the stub at

3572:

Given their interlocking histories, it makes more sense to have one thorough article than three stubs. The current article is <10kB and <500 words. I don't see a compelling reason for a split of

2426:

should be only used if the majority language spoken in the area was not English at the time that place or geographical feature was named. Just because these names have Spanish etymology does not give

4666: 3566: 2818: 4696: 2971: 1559:, you should avoid editing articles directly related to your organization because of the conflict of interest. Is there any particular reason why you have an interest in this Knowledge article? 3624: 3227:. I think setting up the working areas for each county in Project space is probably a good idea in case others want to take counties as well, that way it isn't spread across various userspaces. 1266: 767: 3734: 3439:

1) Consider starting the section with a brief one or two sentence explanation of what the "controversy" is. That way people won't have to read the entire section, unless they want the details.

4031:, with Google books generally being a better bet than Google search, as Google search is almost hopelessly polluted with clickbait and mirrors of both GNIS and Knowledge. That's my process. 4015:

for the location. If the location existed after 1910 and isn't in GNIS, there's a good chance it's not notable. Then, using the coordinates I pulled from GNIS, I search the coordinates in

2850:

some relatively minor changes, the largest of which was removing the reference to Frank Gehry from the note at the top. I think it's a spurious detail that doesn't contribute to the article.

2037: 1009:

that says the local mines all consolidated into the Spring Valley Mine (Spring Valley Mining & Irrigation Co.) But the GNIS does not show Spring Valley as a variant name of Cherokee.

2754: 420:, KG, OM, CH, TD, DL, FRS, RA (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British statesman who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. 4621: 2798: 2139: 4146:

project in front of the eyeballs of the right editors and jump-start them back to life. I'm currently in the process of giving a lot of that infrastructure a fresh coat of paint (see

4027:, which generally only lists significant features. Gudde also has a book about gold camps, which is useful to check for supposed mining features. The last step is to run a standard 657: 3150:

This way, if the PROD/AfD process fails (which is possible), at least we'll have the navboxes pointing at the list articles instead of the individual articles. What do you think? —

461: 2430:

to just merely post literal Spanish translations without any evidence that they were ever used as common or official names. Otherwise, you are just posting an unsourced assumption/

2261: 3636: 3327: 3315: 1924: 1312: 1024: 1391: 1374: 3323: 3319: 3040: 3026: 2757:

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

2449: 1497: 488: 3601: 2451: 2151: 3986:

would be willing to share their five-part test. That could be a useful tool moving forward. The ones that are errors, non-verifiable or non-notable should be deleted. I like

3818:

one-by-one. It should be noted, though, that in every instance where we have tried to deal with these issues in bulk, formal reasons have been found not to do it (see e.g.,

1866: 986: 165: 119: 4683: 4315:, I've added some content and two citations. I'm having some difficulty finding news sources that are about the museum. I added the one I found has been added to the draft 3906: 1819: 992: 804: 2078: 2799: 2739: 2132: 2089: 1632: 1134: 798: 2218: 4283: 4192: 4177: 3001: 2832: 2204: 2055: 867: 754: 125: 2609: 106:

I wouldn't approve it, on that alone. Knowledge is not a tool to be used to advance a position. Perhaps some of these sources can be used to improve articles such as

2790: 1601: 1509: 1354: 647: 135: 4003: 3795: 3585: 2699:

Child star who is subject to a notability challenges. Shouild she always be notable? Are there sources where there is more than a passing mention of the subject?

4108: 3726: 3630: 3282: 3258: 3193: 3072: 3066:

excludes mentions in "tables" (which I presume covers the GNIS database?). It would seem that many of the GNIS locations would not be notable under this criterion.

1644: 1622: 1582: 1568: 1536: 530: 3539: 3516: 3488: 3464: 3303: 3241: 2907: 2883: 2865: 4354: 4057: 4040: 3390: 2718: 900: 744: 539: 521: 512: 372: 4553: 4341: 4324: 2476: 1195:

Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to covering California as a whole or are internationally connected to California such as the two best known cities

4216: 4147: 4129: 3973: 3919: 3331: 2838: 1900: 503: 494: 3843: 3688: 4246:), and found that all three of those cases passed the WCAG AA contrast level. I don't believe you can change the color based on an accessibility argument. — 3819: 3810:

These deletions are necessary work as probably 90% or more of the articles created by the creator during their campaign of mass-article creation do not meet

3503:

would be easier to read, if it can be split up, 2) I've been told references are generally supposed to be placed after the punctuation mark (see examples at

3373: 3351:

Hike395, it's great that you called out this mass-production and errors in the GNIS a decade ago, and It's really disheartening how Carlossuarez46 shot you (

3178:

became a guideline in 2014. The old discussion from 2009 is now obsolete. However, I think having a combined list article per county is still a good idea. —

2443: 1066:

9 August – 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.

401: 367: 3958: 3896: 3870: 3367: 1737: 4736: 3205: 3187: 3159: 3113: 3094: 3048: 2989: 2983: 2970:

As obvious as it sounds that it should use the name supported by its source, the renaming will only happen if at least a few shows of support are added to

2162: 2050: 785: 482: 450: 4255: 4830: 4751: 4436: 1997: 1952: 1240:

Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.

1135: 195: 4611: 3694: 3002: 2032: 1935: 1691: 1401: 1500:. I do have concerns about the accuracy of some of your edits but I don't have time to go through all of them. Please participate in this discussion. 1018: 3902: 3311: 2952: 2045: 1029: 3273:, you'll see that there's about a dozen individual ranches in that valley that ended up in GNIS somehow and then got turned into Knowledge articles. 4767: 4563: 4081: 3560: 3335: 2416: 2167: 1721: 1696: 1542: 1518: 1491: 4487: 1285: 150: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3934: 3814:. As they are present on Wiki they inevitably find their way into other collections of data, and thus take on a life of their own outside Wiki. 3662: 3008: 2944: 2839: 2182: 1419: 3363:

sortable but it's too big to be very usable. Just redirecting each article to one of these lists or to their county's article would work too.

3406: 2507: 1478: 1406: 780: 435:

Nobody having objected here or on the above-mentioned talk page, the WikiProject California template/banner has been removed from that page.

4525: 3831: 4759: 4606: 2356: 1764: 1205: 1141: 916: 4384: 2188:

California is the only US state whose articles on its counties do not include a list of all the adjacent counties in the Geography section

4638: 4548: 4406: 3827: 3411: 2694: 2280: 1871: 1235: 1220: 1190: 1166: 180: 2874:, which is the actual name of the museum, but that is currently a disambiguation, so it would require a bit of shuffling things around. 4802: 4631: 2515: 2465: 2177: 1411: 1250: 921: 290: 4812: 4616: 4474: 3374: 2764: 2288: 2027: 1966: 769: 4835: 3826:

been unwilling to do this and have engaged only very minimally with the process of clearing up these articles (see their talk page

3757: 3619: 3401: 3338:) that the GNIS is unreliable at accurately classifying entries as "populated places", including many that are elsewhere marked as 2157: 2102: 2022: 2010: 1906: 1106: 377: 4807: 1210:

Subject is extremely notable but more within the United States (e.g., counties, mid-level cities, certain governors as governors)

1119: 268: 2256: 1095: 3009: 2729: 1853: 1663: 1293: 872: 210: 1888: 4558: 3772: 3418: 2917: 2107: 2097: 276: 47: 17: 4379:

We're beginning to plan in-person and virtual events for 2022, and your support is needed as we re-launch the LA User Group.

4775: 4668: 3602: 2785: 2210: 1255:

Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.

926: 2630: 4626: 4446: 4438: 4228: 4086: 3412: 2574: 1861: 1225:

Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.

1114: 998: 911: 866:" (emphasis added). What also works against this is that this WikiProject has been relatively semi-active for some time ( 3901:

I'm of the opinion that the non-verifiable ones should be deleted rather than redirected, anyway. The thing deleted at

2597: 2871: 2482: 1958: 1919: 1758: 1367: 1129: 962: 130: 3355:) down and has left us to clean up this mess of 2000+ one-line "articles". I'll note that these are already marked in 2817:

logo, this logo is in the public domain under the laws of California. Consequently, I have uploaded it to the Commons

296: 3614: 4752: 4152: 4024: 3991: 3889: 3752: 3356: 2546: 1914: 1881: 1039: 4790: 4356: 3783: 3638: 3265:

However, there are some that really aren't even worthy of inclusion in such a table. For example, if you look at

2896:

museum a different name; I think the convention is to use the most common name even if it isn't the formal name.

2724: 1380: 1159: 815: 429: 284: 239: 226: 166: 2209:

Okay, I just did like half of them. Somebody else can do the other half or maybe I'll do the rest someday. - OP

2091: 2974:. This is not expected to be controversial but still needs to meet the minimum bar of having had a discussion. 1825: 4383:

Please get involved! If you have ideas, or if you're interested in helping to lead the group, leave a note at

935: 4538: 4301: 3342:. Even when actually places that are or were populated, they are often subdivisions or otherwise do not meet 2918: 2591: 1931: 1671: 1361: 1326: 566: 347: 319: 301: 3257:

Yesterday I looked through some archive discussions on the GNIS spam issue. The format someone suggested in

4543: 4094: 3876: 3360: 3224: 3036: 1701: 3230:

What sort of naming and format are we envisioning for each county's consolidated list article? Perhaps ]?

4780: 4332:, Thank you. I’ll do some digging myself. I am a bit surprised there is a lack of quality news about it. 3596: 3381:

I support the idea and might be interested, but the US on the week including the 4th of July, seriously?

2669: 2347: 2334: 2125: 2074: 1317: 906: 339: 115: 3352: 2587: 4731: 4306: 4114: 3849:

single point that have not been deleted. Also to keep in mind that we have discovered that the source

3762: 3591: 3556: 3022: 2709: 2147: 1152: 810: 681: 548: 38: 3880: 2958: 4721: 3982:; it’s good to have a deeper understanding of the vastness of this clean up effort. I’m wondering if 3085:

Would other editors be willing to merge these into list articles? Should the discussion go to AfD? —

2814: 1359:

No idea what I was thinking six years ago :) If you now think it should exist, please recreate it. —

1125:

Reminder: Please contribute to articles about California on the Spanish and other language Wikipedias

851: 726: 575: 311: 225: 4820: 4661: 4569: 4371: 4296: 3455:. External links such as "Hanan & Associates" and "La Jolla Swim Club" should not be imbedded. 3452: 3314:(industrial rail spurs incorrectly labeled as "populated places" and sadly repeated elsewhere) and 3270: 3236: 2902: 2860: 2827: 2637: 2214: 2084: 1811: 1102:. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year. 1084: 793: 708: 107: 4741: 3581: 3535: 3512: 3484: 3460: 3032: 2172: 1876: 1842: 1333: 690: 638: 602: 593: 570: 136: 4726: 4188: 4167: 4125: 3854: 2924: 2070: 2002: 1908: 1855: 1483: 1445: 620: 584: 111: 92: 2963: 775: 4785: 4651: 4411: 4102: 4048:, this is really helpful, thank you for posting your process. I will save it to my tool kit. 3969: 3767: 3552: 3545: 3018: 2994: 2940: 2701: 2226: 2200: 2143: 2140:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject 2010 US Census#RfC about mass changes to California census figures

1640: 1597: 1578: 1532: 1505: 1387: 1350: 1044: 857: 629: 611: 4320: 4233: 4053: 4011:- My five part test utilizes the resources I have available. The first step is to look on 3999: 3858: 3791: 3722: 3609: 1658: 1006: 717: 699: 685: 663: 552: 103: 4016: 2681: 8: 3339: 3248: 3231: 2897: 2855: 2822: 2603: 1896: 1815: 1807: 1717:

The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

1618: 1564: 1258: 762: 735: 730: 672: 579: 2663: 4716: 4656: 4036: 3915: 3892:

that include the names that would be more satisfactory to Tavix than to the main page.

3866: 3747: 3577: 3531: 3508: 3480: 3456: 3396: 1271: 787: 712: 456: 3058:, a populated location without legal recognition is considered notable if it fulfills 2771: 2675: 4337: 4251: 4184: 4159: 4140: 4121: 4020: 3946: 3811: 3714: 3696: 3684: 3343: 3183: 3155: 3090: 2734: 2651: 2534: 2439: 1556: 896: 876: 842: 694: 651: 642: 606: 597: 557: 196: 3735:

Talk:Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education#Requested move 28 May 2021

408:

No, they don't need moving and I will revert to the correct title if they get moved.

4396: 4028: 3965: 3779: 3573: 2979: 2936: 2778: 2657: 2560: 2321: 2273: 2196: 2117: 2039: 1982: 1636: 1608: 1593: 1588: 1574: 1550: 1528: 1501: 1383: 1346: 861: 624: 588: 534: 477: 443: 397: 2623: 266:

1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work

4769: 4329: 4316: 4243: 4049: 4008: 3995: 3954: 3839: 3787: 3718: 3656: 3386: 3299: 3201: 3109: 2932: 2879: 2808: 2063: 1948: 1524: 1243: 1014: 748: 633: 615: 543: 525: 516: 4705: 4461: 4270: 2687: 2496: 2240: 1467: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4425: 4095: 3310:

Thanks again for working on this! For further background, we've established in

3175: 3063: 3055: 2847: 2564: 2554: 2193: 1892: 1628: 1614: 1560: 1213: 721: 703: 667: 507: 498: 1063: 4684:

Talk:Squaw Valley, Placer County, California#Requested move 11 September 2022

4045: 4032: 3987: 3983: 3938: 3911: 3893: 3862: 3664: 3420: 3364: 3059: 2995: 2792: 2523: 2472: 2422:

To clarify my objection: my understanding with many of the infoboxes is that

2333:

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from

2124:

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from

1723: 1413: 1108: 888: 739: 676: 467:

Come on guys, help me out here. I've done half of the heavy lifting. Cheers!

356: 151: 99: 4795: 4242:

as a background color for black text, link text, and visited link text (per

3937:

that was uppermost in their minds when they created these articles. Doing a

2301: 1094:

This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in

4843: 4333: 4312: 4247: 3680: 3504: 3252: 3179: 3151: 3086: 3076: 2435: 2431: 1341: 1099: 892: 282:

3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (

4826:

Munger Hall, proposed dormitory at University of California, Santa Barbara

2252:

Is this the place to raise questions about California legislature history?

1050:

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

4761: 4284:

Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested move 7 October 2021

3942: 3525: 3497: 3473: 3429: 3223:

I'm interested in helping out with this, starting with my home county of

2975: 2645: 2575: 1056: 1034: 880: 561: 468: 438: 393: 3672: 3979: 3950: 3884: 3835: 3551:

Don't forget to strike the tilde key four times to sign your postings.

3382: 3295: 3218: 3197: 3105: 2890: 2875: 2382:

Saturday, March 9: Vincent Price Art Museum at East Los Angeles College

1944: 1198: 2266: 4844: 4747:

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?

4594: 4576: 4204: 4136: 2262:

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference

1228: 884: 181: 4120:

That certainly seems like a good idea to me for whatever its worth.

3978:

Thank you for sharing the history behind the stub article creations

1631:: Please let me know if there are any questions when you review the 945: 4350:

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review

3294:

if it has received SIGCOV, it should stay; otherwise it should go.

2365: 2325: 1986: 4240: 3875:

Thirding FOARP. I would love to just redirect these to pages like

2935:

I have been adding to this article, can it be moved up from stub?

1428: 850:

I'm not sure what a separate guideline here would accomplish. Per

4837: 4697: