Per the discussion here, whether or not CDP are added to the navbox is a choice of the state project groups. Which in practice the Michigan project has not listed CDP seperately. Spshu ( talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You might want to revisit that. I ran across several counties in Michigan that did have the CDPs split out already. It's a very useful thing to have the CDPs separate, for those like myself who are trying to update community articles to the 2010 census figures. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

One of the best edit summaries I've ever seen. -- S. Rich ( talk) 21:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Glad I could brighten your day! -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I've noticed a couple of your edits over that last few days have replaced the population density values that were calculated by my bot with the auto function. I would encourage you to hold off on doing this until the auto function is fixed to actually calculate population density correctly. It currently calculates using the total area rather than correctly using just land area, and the end result is an incorrect value. You can see on the talk page for the infobox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_settlement) a fix is being discussed, but to my knowledge no one has actually coded it yet. Jamo2008 ( talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. Over time I have used the "auto" function because I knew that areas regularly change for many types of places, and it wasn't clear to me that anyone was going to develop a bot to put in the correct values - so many thanks for having your bot look out for that. I'll hold off on articles where it's clear that you've been updating the figures and on ones where there's a significant water area. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I notice that you've been editing some county templates to change "Unincorporated communities" to "CDPs", when the term's applicable.

I'd suggest that for most readers, the abbreviation "CDP" or even the term "Census-designated place" is a little too obscure. I'd suggest that we use a label such as "Unincorporated community ( Census-designated place)", as I've done at Template:Knox County, Nebraska; or, when both CDPs and non-CDP UCs are present, to call the latter "Other unincorporated communities", as I've done at Template:Seward County, Nebraska. This would leave "CDP" in place for bots and people looking expressly for that term, while providing a layman's term to convey information to readers who aren't familiar with census-bureau nomenclature. Ammodramus ( talk) 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

That's okay with me, as long as the CDPs are split from the non-CDPs. It does get a little verbose for labels, but "Other unincorporated communities" (as I've also been doing) already sets us down that route. Thanks for getting in touch, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You seem to be in an edit war where you're insisting that article content - people in a list of alumni, in this instance - must have their own Wikipedia article. That isn't the case at all. Our notability policy is very clear that it only applies to the subject of articles and not the content within them. It's perfectly normal and extraordinarily common for a topic, including a person, to only be important within the context of another subject.

What's typically done on many college and university articles is that we ask that alumni are supported either by a source or their own Wikipedia article. Ideally, they would all have sources but a Wikipedia article is often "good enough" since most of us have more important, pressing things to do than to copy sources from one article to another. So if the material you're removing doesn't cite any references then that is okay.

But you still shouldn't edit war and you should be discussing this in the article's Talk page at this point. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Yep. I see you spend a lot of time on university articles, so I'll defer to your judgment about inclusion. I spend most of my time in the cities and towns realm, where a different standard appears to have evolved, and where lists of notable people are frequently prefaced by a comment that entries should have articles written first. I usually find that editing an article a single time on any given day gives plenty of time for others to weigh in and for consensus to be reached, so thanks for being that other. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Ken. I agree with most of your links of place names; kudos to your good work. Just a note to mention that some fall within wp:overlink, though, at which you may want to glance. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Always good to refresh one's understanding of the MoS! I've gone back and deleted repeat occurrences of links to cities within sections. However, since the article is a list where a large number of links are expected, I've decided to re-link cities in each new section so that the reader doesn't have to search too hard when they find a particular city to be unlinked. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 14:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the significant copyediting improvements to Camp Timanous. Much obliged. Crogle94 ( talk) 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hallo, I noticed that in this edit, as well as fixing the town (thanks) you've added spaces within the {{ cite journal}}s. I don't know whether there's any MOS for this, but if you think the spaces are needed you might take it up with whoever is responsible for the "cite" button on the edit bar, which produces boxes to fill in to create a reference - that's how I created those references, and they emerge without the spaces. I agree that spaces are useful, as they often help prevent fields splitting awkwardly across lines, and they make it easier to read and edit the refrences. Pam D 12:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting:I see that the examples at {{ Cite web}} include spaces ... but before the "|" rather than after it as you've added it! I'll dig around further. Pam D 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I've raised it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Spaces_in_templates_such_as_.7B.7Bcite_journal.7D.7D, because it would be good to know whether there's any rule, guideline, or even consensus about these spaces. Nothing personal - I didn't link to the specific edit, so you aren't mentioned by name, but it's not a complaint, just a query. Pam D 13:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know how the "cite" template has been working. My reason for editing was to fix the town name, and spaces are just an afterthought as I look through the article. Best wishes, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The website that you reverted my correction to no longer exists. Please leave the new edit the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.135.55.119 ( talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Ken, I noticed you reverted my edit of the Mount Washington piece. I don't really have any beef with that, and perhaps, being a book writer and not a wiki specialist, I left it sounding more like opinion than fact.

But from the perspective of someone who has spent much time both in the white mountains and at sea, and who has written extensively about the early voyages of discovery, it struck me as an overreach to suggest that the "high mountains" Verrazano saw from somewhere along the the Eastern coast were necessarily a single peak at the extreme edge of visibility from sea. To me, it seems a good deal less close to the truth to say as you do that Verrazano saw Mount Washington, even with a little caveat that a citation is needed, than it is to say that some have suggested he may have been referring to the White Mountains when he said "high mountains inland." Perhaps the most correct thing to say is that New Hampshire LORE is that Verrazano was referring to the White Mountains.

I don't particularly care one way or the other, but there's no shame in qualifying when the "facts" are not really "facts" but are interpretations of vague historical descriptions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfschneider ( talk • contribs) 2013-07-08

Hi - I think your statement makes a lot of sense (I said "plausible" in my edit summary). It would be wonderful if there were some published info somewhere that would support it. Hopefully there is. Just to be clear, I have not said that Verrazano saw Mount Washington; I merely restored the pre-existing text of the article (which someone in the dim past of Wikipedia wrote), then requested further citation for the claim about the "high interior mountains". I would love to see your thoughtful evaluation of the Verrazano claim appear in the article, but it can not be original research, that's all. Thanks for getting in touch, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 19:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

You need to make that request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan as it has already been discussed, which I agree with their conclusions. You can readily access CDP through the Category:Census-designated places in Michigan. Spshu ( talk) 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Indeed that the UFO incident does not provide info on the Gulf of Maine itself, but that is where the incident occurred. 99.229.83.117 ( talk) 07:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

But it already has its own article. All sorts of things happen in all sorts of places that don't merit having them mentioned in the article about the location. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree again, but the Shag Harbour article page mentions about the Shag Harbour Incident. Both two different articles. 99.229.83.117 ( talk) 23:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It's certainly relevant for Shag Harbour. All the more reason that it's unnecessary to mention it in the much larger Gulf. By that logic, one could also include it in an article on the Atlantic Ocean. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Indeed but Shag Harbour and the Gulf of Maine are two small areas within the Atlantic ocean so the incident maybe shouldn't be mentioned past the small Gulf of Maine compared to the huge Atlantic. The Atlantic's page is more towards the ocean itself. 99.229.83.117 ( talk) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Dixonville Every sign in the town says "Dixonville". It never was "Dicksonville". The Post Office says "Dixonville". The phone book says "Dixonville". The Census Bureau is not authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.143.193 ( talk) 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching that. The USGS map says "Dixonville", too. I will need to note in the article that the Census Bureau calls it Dicksonville, so the CDP info can be found by those looking for it. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Dad, I thought that, being a pianist/organist/musician, you might want to check out the new Score extension: Help:Score. (In case you ever decide to edit any music articles) Cooljeanius ( talk) ( contribs) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Cool! You never know... -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Nice edit on Harrison. It needed a good cleanup. Cheers! Richard Apple ( talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

And thank you! Comments are always appreciated. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 02:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply

i like u

roguehamster2073 23:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ken,

I am the current historian for Colebrook, New Hampshire. I would like to be of help in expanding your work on our town but I am woefully ignorant on how to do it. Could you get in touch with me direct and let me tell you what I have. You can select what you want. I can send it to you and you can add at your pleasure. Bud GHulse@ncia.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.142.152 ( talk) 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Ken Gallager: Respectfully I submit to you that to maintain that New Hampshire was "formally organized" by the October 1691 charter by William and Mary, which created an expanded Massachusetts, is not only not clearer than my edit but actually factually incorrect. At no point in this charter are the origninal four towns of New Hampshire, to wit, Portsmouth, Exeter, Hampton and Dover, mentioned or included in the new Massachusetts boundaries. In fact, this charter specifically repeats what the 1629 charter issued by Charles I to the Massachusetts Bay Company stated respecting the northern boundary, i.e., three miles north of the Merrimack River (never mind that what this actually meant would be debated many times over until decided in 1741). By omission, New Hampshire was to be independent again, which is exactly what happened in 1692 when Samuel Allen and John Usher were commissioned Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively of New Hampshire. But to assert that New Hampshire was "formally organized" by the 1691 charter is vague at best and incorrect at worst. After all, how could anything be formally organized when it is not even mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.34.158 ( talk) 21:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sure your edits are clearer in your mind, but the way they are written, they make the article much less clear to anyone else. Please try a small correction here and there first, and whatever you do, please provide citations. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I may try again, though I am very busy right now with other things, but I will try to impress upon you once more that the 1691 charter establishing an expanded Massachusetts nowhere mentions New Hampshire or any of the first four towns in NH that then existed. So, to state that NH was "formally organized" by the 1691 charter is misleading at best and downright incorrect at worst. In fact, the NH territory was deliberately omitted from the 1691 charter chiefly for reasons related to the Mason claims. References for what I stated are, among others, the NH Manual For The General Court (published in odd years) and Herbert Osgood's The American Colonies In The Seventeenth Century, Vol. 3, pp. 439-440 (1904). Also, to assert later on in the article that Samuel Allen was appointed Governor under the 1691 charter is also misleading because his appointment (and that of the Lieutenant Governor, John Usher) was made completely independently of the 1691 charter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.34.158 ( talk) 16:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Presumably Allen and Usher were appointed in conjunction with the issuance of a New Hampshire charter, not the Massachusetts one. As Ken mentioned in the edit summary of his most recent removal of your contributions, the level of detail you are adding is also inappropriate for the lead section of an article. Please try to find a way to add your contributions further down, where much of what you're bringing up is already present in some detail. The lead is supposed to be be just a summary of the article. Magic ♪piano 17:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

There was never a New Hampshire provincial charter. Massachusetts with its 1691 charter "was anomalous in being a royal chartered province." (The Development Of The Legislative Council: 1606-1945 by Martin Wright p.162 {1945}) To the extent that New Hampshire was ever "formally organized," it occurred in the late 1670s when elements of the English home government, and specificially the Lord Chief Justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas, in 1677 asserted that Massachusetts had no authority over the area which is now southeastern New Hampshire, this followed two years later by King Charles II, acting upon such a judgment making New Hampshire a royal province. (A History of Colonial America by Oliver Perry Chitwood p.168 {1948}). In any case, perhaps the level of detail I provided in the first paragraph was too long for the soundbite age in which we live, but what good is brevity if accompanied by factual error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.34.158 ( talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The ideal for the lead section would be brevity and correctness. Can you do that? The details need to go farther down in the article. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Ken: Sometime ago you created List of tallest buildings in the Inland Empire‎. "Ranking" was included in the list. Looking at it now, I cannot determine how the rank is calculated. A note was posted on the talk page, but I'm thinking you could take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi - I'm afraid I can't help you about the ranking. I actually didn't create the page; it's just that my edit from 2008 was the one at the bottom of the first page of history. The creator of the page is User:Cpbronco, but they haven't been active since 2009. Sorry, -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

How right you are! I scrolled down the first 50 edits to 2008 and mistakenly thought that was it. In any case I've left a note on the talk page. This is way back on my back-back burner. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply