User talk:Little Mountain 5/Archive 14

Archive 14
(February 2011 – August 2011)

---

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Archives

---

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Thanks for the en dashes but ...

... but just noticed that you also changed "don't" to "do not" inside a direct quote from a source. So... my advice is in the future "do not" change "don't" without a closer look. betsythedevine (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I checked.  Fixed. Thanks, LittleMountain5 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and I love the en-dash fix on Brattle Street (Cambridge, Massachusetts). betsythedevine (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about edit

You made this edit today to Common Schools Act of 1871 using AWB. I've looked at it and I can't for the life of me see the logic behind the change. (It's no worse than it was to start with, it just seems like a trivial edit with no clear purpose.) Are you able to explain it? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was rather trivial, but not without purpose. Previously the references appeared [5][6][2]; I put them in numerical order: [2][5][6]. (I think there's a guideline about that somewhere...) In hindsight, it probably wasn't a necessary change. Thanks, LittleMountain5 00:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. The numerical order isn't apparent from the edit summary, but thank you for the small improvement! I wouldn't normally bother about changes on this level until the article is at least GA as the reference order is likely to just change again but now that it's done I won't complain! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Four Award thing! I wasn't aware that that it existed, it was a pleasant surprise! -- Sabre (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) nominated you for it. Great job on the article! Cheers, LittleMountain5 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

List of longest streams of Oregon

You probably have a watch on List of longest streams of Oregon, but if not, recent changes related to a discussion here are making the page worse, in my opinion. I posted a note about this to the article's talk page. I think some of the changes are related to WP:ACCESS and are probably improvements, but the layout changes look bad to me. Everybody involved means well, but I wasn't expecting the page itself to undergo significant changes. Finetooth (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. LittleMountain5 00:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK possibilities

Good additions to Union Creek (Rogue River). I saw your edit summary mentioning the DYK possibility and thought I would say that if you'd like to pursue a DYK for Union Creek or any that I've been doing start-class articles on recently, please do. I'm working on a complete set of starter articles about the Coos River and its major tribs. Most are done, and the Williams River is half-baked in one of my sandboxes. I don't want to take the time to nominate them for DYKs; I have this long list of to-dos that are filling my days. Finetooth (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Great job on the new articles. All of them already or very nearly meet the DYK requirements, but the hard part is finding something interesting (hook-y) about them. I'll keep trying before their five day window runs out, though. Cheers, LittleMountain5 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to have a thing about water, not quite sure why. Don't feel you have to do any DYKs. But if any look like fun, that's swell. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! The two DYKs noted below were also posted to my talk page, and I was afraid I was getting the credit instead of you. If credit had not been split, I would have preferred that you got it rather than I. Thank you again. Finetooth (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Naw, you were the one who did most of the work! I was a bit hesitant to add my name at all... I only added a few sentences to each. Anyway, thanks, and... you're welcome. ;) Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pistol River

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Union Creek (Rogue River)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Great work adding new articles and expanding existing ones! You have reached the milestone of 25 such articles added to the DYK section of the main page. One of the articles—Humbug Mountain—received 10,100 hits! Thanks for steadily adding good material to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! LittleMountain5 22:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WPORE COTW 2.0 - the picture edition

Greetings one and all. For some of you, this will be your first time receiving one of these messages, as it has been a year since the WikiProject Oregon Collaboration of the Week (COTW) was a regular thing. My hope is it gets back to being a regular thing.

Usually I would go over the past COTW, but we are basically starting out anew. So, without further adieu, this edition is our semi-annual picture drive. We usually try to do it when there is decent weather in the state, and today seems to fit the bill. Now although you are encouraged to go out and take pictures, you can also just search the internet for images that have the proper licensing and upload those. Flickr is one site that has a fair amount of content with the proper licensing (most images on Flickr are not compatible). See WP:COPYRIGHT in general. For some “free” sources, check out the our dormant subproject that has some links to sources.

Lastly, if you need to know what images we need, here are the requests. Please remove the request from the talk page if you add an image.

Finally (this is not image related), as the years have passed, we have lost many good editors, and others, like myself, are no longer in school or are working full-time or both, and thus are less active in the project. The project lives on, but it has created a bit of a power vacuum without a de facto cabal still around all the time. With that in mind, I encourage newer project members to step-up and fill some leadership type roles. Granted, we have no formal ruling junta or anything and no real defined roles, but there are many maintenance type tasks that some of us just took on to keep the project going. For instance, I ran the COTW, was pretty much the only one doing assessments, updating the portal, and even handing out the awards. I am sure others in the project can name what things they have done. The point being, that while I enjoyed those and still do some of those, I simply no longer have the free time to do all of it at a level that the project deserves. That said, I hope to start a discussion at WT:ORE where we can see if some newer editors would like to step-up and take on some of these tasks, which will hopefully make for a more inclusive project, and maybe get us back to the heyday of say 2008 when things were really rocking for WikiProject Oregon.

As always, please click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)s

WikiProject Oregon Triple Crown

Your Majesty, Little Mountain 5, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject Oregon and its hardworking volunteers. –SMasters (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! LittleMountain5 22:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NHD numbers for two Oregon streams

I've been catching my breath lately and not doing anything difficult, but I've noticed the NHD numbers that User:Ken Gallager has been adding here and there. In the case of the Owyhee and the Grande Ronde, we should update the List of longest streams of Oregon and change the sort order. I'd be happy to do that, but I wanted to check with you first. Perhaps you know of other streams in the list that should be updated, and I could do them all at once. I have not yet mastered the NHD (sigh). My thought was just to use Ken's numbers in the Oregon list and clone his refs to the NHD to support the numbers. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I have noticed several others we need to change: the West Little Owyhee River from 51 to 63 miles, the Burnt River from 77 to 98 miles, the Powder River from 144 to 153 miles, the Imnaha River from 64 to 73 miles, maybe even the Snake River from 1,040 to 1,078 miles, and a new one(!), the Minam River at 51 miles. I dislike the idea because of all the work we've done, but assuming the NHD is the most accurate source for stream lengths, should we consider using it for all of them? (I'll even do the calculations if you want... ;) ) LittleMountain5 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the work. If you could do the calculations for any of the other non-NHD ones in List of longest streams of Oregon, that would be great. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. It might take me a while though... I haven't got the NHD (rather, GIS in general) completely figured out yet either. Cheers, LittleMountain5 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On a completely-different-yet-somewhat-related note, I created Template:Convert/stream a while back, and it may be of some use to you; if you like templates, that is. It's a lot easier to use, takes up much less space in edit mode, and shouldn't change the overall appearance of the lists at all. (See my sandbox for an example.) LittleMountain5 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I use {{convert}} a lot, and I've now added a link from one of my user pages to your variant. Finetooth (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Idaho list is looking good. I hadn't seen it before. One problem, I think, might be the sort of big numbers with comma separators. Without the {{Nts}} template, will they work? The watershed sort, for example, returns an odd arrangement. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The template does use {{nts}}, and I'm fairly certain it works... I can't see a problem. LittleMountain5 22:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Done for now, I think. Thanks for adding the missing Minam data; I forgot about the archive and was just about to look it all up again. Finetooth (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Count

Did you update the count for the CBOTB demotion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Details, details... Y Updated. Thanks, LittleMountain5 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New FOUR promotion step

Note that there is a new FOUR promotion step: add four=yes as a parameter in the {{ArticleHistory}} for the new FOUR article so that it is included in Category:Wikipedia four award articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. LittleMountain5 16:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a whole bunch of candidates to slog through, I have decided that everytime I review an article in the queue, I would also review an article from the category of candidates. If you do to, we will have some hope of reducing the candidate list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Maybe two for every one, else we'll never get through it. ;) LittleMountain5 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Four Count

I see you removed the {{asof}} tag. What about the number of authors?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think the template is necessary? I thought the whole point of automating the count was to, well, automate it. (No edits required.) If there's an "as of" statement, it will have to be updated every time a new article is certified anyway. I say we leave it off, and update the author count as needed. (Or figure out a way to automate the author count as well...) Thoughts? LittleMountain5 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

O.K. we just have to make sure we keep the author count straight. Manual is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Christmas flood of 1964

Looking forward to the expansion! (that I am too lazy to do) Hopefully you will make a Californian happy (see talk page). Also, I think it is preferred to "delistify" the see also section as I had done, or are those inherently supposed to be lists? You have more GA and FA experience than I do so I'll bow to your judgment. Valfontis (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too! I just visited the Avenue of the Giants area last week, and learned a lot about this particular flood. It sure is amazing what nature can do (and destroy). Hopefully I can expand the Oregon section a bit more as well. Great job on what's already there, though! As for the see also section, WP:SEEALSO states that it should be "a bulleted list, preferably alphabetized". Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you need any help with the flood, I live in the area and contribute to Wiki all the time. Great to see others working on our local history !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I may take you up on that offer soon. :) I haven't forgotten about the expansion... I've been a bit busier than expected as of late. Cheers, LittleMountain5 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Foghorn Stringband is brand new and may need some attention. I thought you might be just the person who can help get that article at least secured against SPOD-attacks?GeoBard^Rap 02:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What do you mean by SPOD-attacks? LittleMountain5 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh - yes. I am having to go offline at least until tommorow and don't want to come back online to discover that the article has been speedy deleted for some reason. That has happened before. But I probably should not be unduly concerned. The real issue is whether there is going to be a time wasting afd debate. This is one of the most influential bands in its genre in the Pacific Northwest but I don't know what it takes to have an article about a band pass notability and so forth. GeoBard^Rap 02:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching this and would contest a prodposed deletion or speedy deletion but it could still get taken to AfD if notability isn't addressed using the standard Wikipedia processes outlined at WP:NOTE, as again, the article must *show* how the band is notable. Sorry you find this process so frustrating. I'll see if I can find some sources to cite. Valfontis (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha now. I don't think there's any chance that the article will be speedied or prodded at this point, but I do agree with Valfontis: it may very well go to AfD if the group's notability isn't asserted. There's not much I can do to help you... you just need to find some reliable sources that assert the group's notability, and once they're added, everything should be fine and dandy. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Distributed element filter

I just promoted Distributed element filter. I am not sure if this is consistent with the new rules. At the GA stage he only nominated it. However, the GA involved tweaking an article that was almost 100% his contribution. Thus, the stage from DYK to GA was almost all his work, but polished by others during the GA review. Let me know what you think. Feel very free to reverse this promotion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely promote it. He (Spinningspark (talk · contribs)) wrote the entire article—and nominated it at GAN. Although he didn't participate in the GAN, there really wasn't much to participate in... nothing that required involvement. And the reviewer, Jpat34721 (talk · contribs), and Materialscientist (talk · contribs) did all the work suggested in the GAN for him via rather extensive copyedits; neither did any actual content building. All the other Four Award requirements check out as well. Good call. LittleMountain5 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New WP:FOUR record for earliest creation date.

Based on a ruling that the article became encyclopedic with this edit, we have a new record for oldest article at WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is the oldest article per se, but if you ruled that the article became encyclopedic with Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)'s edit, shouldn't the Four Award records reflect that? It needs to be one way or the other: either Imzadi1979 created the encyclopedic article on May 4, 2006 and qualifies for an award, or 66.227.188.38 (talk · contribs) created the article on June 20, 2005, making Imzadi1979 ineligible. LittleMountain5 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just have a footnote that the table uses the date of the first edit for the page even when it took multiple edits to achieve encyclopedic content. Recall that at the WT:FOUR FAQ we allow for collaborations on the start. All productive (non-vandalism) edits between the first edit and the first encyclopedic edit make one eligible to be a collaborator.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we do use a footnote, I personally think it should be reversed, i.e we use May 4, 2006 with a note stating that the article was created prior to that date but it was not deemed encyclopedic until that date. After all, the Four Award records page lists awards by editor, so shouldn't the creation date reflect the creation by that editor? I don't know, it just seems odd to add a date that has nothing to do with the recipient. Thoughts? Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WT:FOUR. A couple other people will likely chime in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied it over. LittleMountain5 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

5 new ones today

I did 12 more from the possible category. I promoted 5, with Funerary art and Geography and ecology of the Everglades being somewhat questionable because of their highly collaborative nature.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. LittleMountain5 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on August 22, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 22, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seventy-six rivers and creeks at least 50 miles (80 km) long are the longest streams in the U.S. state of Oregon. All of these streams originate in the U.S. except the longest, the Columbia, which begins in the Canadian province of British Columbia and flows 1,249 miles (2,010 km) to the sea near Astoria. The Snake River—second-longest at 1,040 miles (1,670 km)—is the only other stream of more than 1,000 miles on the list; the Snake begins in Wyoming and flows through parts of Idaho and Washington, as well as Oregon. Some of the other streams also cross the borders between Oregon and California, Nevada, Idaho, and Washington, but most flow entirely within Oregon.

Wow, that was unexpected! Thanks! LittleMountain5 04:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure was. The blurb looks fine to me, and I think the list is too. I'll look at it carefully again tomorrow. Do you know of any problems? Finetooth (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for a small Grande Ronde fix, I think we're all set. I'm adding the Minam River to the map right now. LittleMountain5 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about those two things; glad you remembered. I ran the link checker this morning, and it finds six dead URLs in the citations. I'll see what I can do to fix them or to find replacements. Finetooth (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Banksia sphaerocarpa

I need a second opinion on the Banksia sphaerocarpa WP:FOUR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Another borderline one: Reception history of Jane Austen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing them now. LittleMountain5 14:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tough decisions, but I'd say no to both. No to Banksia sphaerocarpa (creator: Hesperian) mainly because Hesperian did not receive DYK credit for it. It also seems like Casliber did the majority of the expansion and most of the work at GAN and FAC. No to Reception history of Jane Austen (creator: Simmaren) for similar reasons: Simmaren did not receive DYK credit (although he should have, IMHO), and Awadewit did the majority of the expansion after the article's creation and most of the work at GAN and FAC. For both articles, the creators just weren't involved enough in the later stages to be eligible for Four Awards. LittleMountain5 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessments, but I had thought we had agreed to evaluate who did the work and not who did the nominations, which I felt meant that DYK credit was not essential.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of them did do a lot of work leading up to DYK, and I think both should have received DYK credit, so yes, I suppose both would pass the DYK requirement. LittleMountain5 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Monterey Bay (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! LittleMountain5 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Willamette River

Happy birthday to you too! How old are you? (Just kidding).

Since you appear to have a passion for Oregon rivers but have not made many edits to the Willamette River article, I am inviting you to comment at the article's FAC listing, found here. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hopefully be able to take a look at the article and its FAC in a few days. Cheers, LittleMountain5 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I missed it. :( Better luck next time. LittleMountain5 16:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the FAC failed. But if you planned to write some comments, there's a section on the talk page just for that. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick

New oldest creation date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Lisa del Giocondo, but it was a redirect at first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the award only recognizes one editor and the rules state that the creation of the article occurs with the first encyclopedic edit, I think the creation date should be just that: the date that one editor made the first encyclopedic edit to the article. In this case, October 6, 2007, not April 5, 2005. LittleMountain5 15:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

New oldest DYK, GA and FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18