User talk:Seasider53/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DYK nomination of William Fraser (architect)

Hello! Your submission of William Fraser (architect) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

/* Summer activity */

Following his release from Preston North End — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BAE5:2100:A006:581F:DB7B:F590 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

/* Summer activity */

Please could you stop altering this article, if you look at previous seasons & also other clubs this is how its done. Thanks

Classic reasoning. - Seasider53 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Gary Bowyer

Your edits have been reverted as non-constructive. Please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page. GiantSnowman 20:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Resumption of falsely marking edits as minor

You've just come out of a block for falsely marking non-minor edits as minor to resume doing the very same, straight out of the traps. Blanking your warnings does not make the issue go away. I notice you are also warring. Per WP:BRD, however valid you believe your edits to be, if you have been Bold and somebody has Reverted you, the result of your "pow-wow" determines whether the edit is re-instated. Wait for consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I really got your goat after my wee dig, didn't I? That aside, since making false claims is the order of the day, I have to ask which recent edits of mine can't be classed as minor? - Seasider53 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. All quite possibly with merit as edits but not minor. If you're going to attempt to be smart, repeatedly ignore warnings and resume problematic behaviour straight out of a block, to expect slack to be extended to you is somewhat rich. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It says he was born in Kilmun right there, so to say he is Scottish-born because he was born in Kilmun is ridiculous. Removing a ridiculous and redundant part of a sentence is not a major edit. - Seasider53 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is major about this? - Seasider53 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As you've been told before this is not a discussion about the merits of individual edits or whether I or anyone else agree with them. It is that you are persistently marking edits as minor which, under the designation we have here, are not. Again, if in doubt, do not mark as minor. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

How is not about the merits of individual edits when you just linked me three individual edits? Can you see why I'm asking for clarification on stuff from third parties? - Seasider53 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

At your request I linked some edits that "can't be classed as minor". It's about this classification as minor, not the substance of the edit. No, I'm at a loss as to what you are not grasping. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. - Seasider53 (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This one. The very fact that you were reverted ought to be the clue that it was not an edit that "could never be the subject of a dispute" (Help:Minor). --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to avoid scrutiny by again marking significant edits as minor, despite multiple warnings.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RexxS (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seasider53 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Seem to be being victimised by two people (see this section of Archive 1 as well as above). Personal gripes aside, I've read the recommended Help:Minor, and can now see why changing ""coach" to "manager" can be construed as larger than minor, but where I live coach and manager are the same thing. I've asked where I went wrong in the eyes of the admin who believes me edits were "non-constructive", and the person who responded there has already reinstated most of the edits I made. (If it's easier, the difference between my final edit and his can be seen here). I'm also told this edit shouldn't have been marked as minor, but I don't see why. I endeavour to be more diligent with the marking of minor edits, which I thought I had been doing with my recent edits. (Apologies for all the links.) Seasider53 (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You do not appear to be blocked presently. SQL^{Query me!} 04:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For what it's worth, if you can make a convincing case that you understand the problems of avoiding scrutiny that marking edits as "minor" can cause, and commit to doing better in future, I'll unblock you myself. However, you really ought to consider whether you can justify my block as "victimising" you. I understand that it's normal for someone blocked to vent, but playing the victim card rarely improves your chances of convincing other admins that you should be unblocked. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that you're reading what MattLunker says and taking it as gospel. As I said, I now see why coaches and managers need to be separated more in their descriptions, but as I stated above, I cannot see how these two edits are not minor (one is just moving text to the end of the sentence, the reason for which I put in the edit summary):

It says he was born in Kilmun right there, so to say he is Scottish-born because he was born in Kilmun is ridiculous. Removing a ridiculous and redundant part of a sentence is not a major edit. - Seasider53 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is major about this? - Seasider53 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If you agree with him that these are not minor, I'll agree to do better. (That isn't meant as quid pro quo.) Seasider53 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can be helpful. A minor edit on Wikipedia is not judged as one that is small or which doesn't change much. It's one that does not require scrutiny because no other reasonable editor could possibly disagree with it.

If you look at the Kilmun edit, can you visualise the possibility that an editor unfamiliar with Scotland might consider that it's worth emphasising that an Australian politician was Scottish-born (despite the rest of the sentence stating he was born in Kilmun)? If there's any possibility of that, then your edit must be available for scrutiny by all, including everyone who hides minor edits from their watchlist.

If you check your edit summary of the Kilbride Bridge edit, you stated undue weight to it being toll-free. You moved the toll-free description to later in the lead, reducing the weight. Can you envision the possibility that a reasonable editor – perhaps one familiar with the bridge – might disagree with your assessment of the weight of that phrase and prefer the description to be in the opening sentence, per WP:BEGIN ("Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article")? If there's any possibility of that, then your edit must be available for scrutiny by all, including everyone who hides minor edits from their watchlist.

I'm not trying to argue whether your edits were an improvement or not. I'm only trying to explain to you that if another editor could reasonably disagree with your edit (or even just a part of it), then it has to be made available for scrutiny to everyone, and must not be marked as minor. I hope that makes the issue clearer for you. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I was just reminded of myself, the Kilmun edit is in the "Notable people [from Kilmun]" section of the settlement's article, not his own. Because of that, I don't see how there would be confusion about his being Scottish-born. If it was his own article, obviously that would be different. - Seasider53 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in here, because you left a message on my talk earlier and I noticed you were blocked when I went to reply to it. I haven't looked through any of the history here, but the confusion seems to be about the meaning of a minor edit. The way that I think about that is that any edit that changes meaning in any way is not minor: punctuation changes, spelling changes, moving an image to a slightly different location - those are minor changes. As soon as the edit affects the meaning of the prose, it's not a minor change, and shouldn't be marked as such. (For that reason, you will find almost no minor changes in my contribs.) FWIW, I value your contributions to Wikipedia, and hope that your acceptance of this will lead to an unblock. GirthSummit _(blether) 01:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries; I'm just about done, due to the splitting of hairs on here. Plus, the vandalism that occurred in my watchlist articles during my 48-hour block the other day is still in there. But removing a subject's country of birth from an article about his village of birth in which it states he was born there is worth much more scrutiny. Thanks for your input and offer for guidance on the Scottish articles. - Seasider53 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, dude lost his admin role and has apparently taken it badly. That gives me peace of mind that I wasn't losing mine. - Seasider53 (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't see your watchlist - if you tell me what articles have vandalism in them, I'll deal with it. As for the other stuff - if it changes meaning, it's not minor, even if it's blindingly obvious that it's true. Think like a grammarian - does your edit change what the sentence means? If yes, then it's not minor - even if Alex Salmond said the town in which he was born, but neglected to mention that he was Scottish, adding that fact would be a necessary, but not a minor, edit. GirthSummit _(blether) 01:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal article. Here is the sentence before I edited it. - Seasider53 (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it - can you explain what is vandalism there? GirthSummit _(blether) 01:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't; I removed "Scottish-born" as redundant and put it as a minor edit. - Seasider53 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn't be flagged as a minor edit, since it clearly changes meaning, but it doesn't seem like vandalism. Above you mentioned vandalism in articles on your watchlist - do you want me to look at that? GirthSummit _(blether) 01:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm looking at it as is it worth making an editor waste their time looking at this edit? Common sense says no; Wikipedia policy doesn't always do common sense. I'm sure someone will chime in with an example where they think I'm, "Ooooh, hope nobody spots this I just did," but it just seems by idea of minor is off-course. The vandalism can wait - thanks for the offer though. - Seasider53 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about other editors spending time looking at your edits - unless a bot or a filter thinks they're dodgy and flags them, the chances are that nobody will check them anyway. Just agree to stop marking edits as minor and I'm sure RexxS will be happy to unblock. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, unfortunately: I've made a friend. :-) - Seasider53 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 16 Prince Street, Peterhead for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 16 Prince Street, Peterhead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 Prince Street, Peterhead until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Seasider53. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/William Fraser (architect).
Message added 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Griestal-Strauße for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Griestal-Strauße is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griestal-Strauße until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for William Fraser (architect)

On 30 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Fraser (architect), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Fraser won a commission in 1896 to design a memorial honouring Scottish poet Robert Burns, which incorporates a tower (pictured) in the Scottish baronial style? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Fraser (architect). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Fraser (architect)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Virtual high-five with Ian.fraser1. - Seasider53 (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And a Virtual high-five right back at you Seasider53. I greatly appreciate all your help with this article and I'm very pleased it met with Wikipedia's rigorous standards. Cheers!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

​ Hey guys - I've just realised this was up for a DYK - I was wondering why it kept popping up in my watchlist over the last couple of days! Congratulations for making it onto the main page, with an image too, very nice work. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Girth Summit. Being a relative Wikipedia novice, I also didn't quite understand what was going on when I received the high-five from Seasider53 and a DYK notification, which was a new experience for me. It's a great honour to see our work recognized in this way and to even share a main page mention with items about James Dean and Dr. Anthony Fauci! Thanks again for all your help on the William Fraser article. All the best.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Ian.fraser1: for posterity. - Seasider53 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much GirthSummit. It's very good to have a record of this DYK for posterity. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to do this. All the best to you and Seasider53.50.66.150.42 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Rangers article edits

My apologies for the reverts on the main article page. Sometimes so many changes can be indicative of vandalism or inexperienced editors messing up the page. I was hasty to revert your work and I again apologise having reviewed the changes. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep comments about the article on the relevant talk page, since that's where you want things discussed. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cameron Antwi

The article Cameron Antwi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 10:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Zeughauskeller

Hello, Seasider53. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zeughauskeller".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtney Gains height

That man has seen it in person. More reliable than that there can be nothing ...

79.150.85.74 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banff, Aberdeenshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtney Gains height

I ask you please friend, I did not eliminate the height anymore. I assure you that this information is totally true, it is taken from the web "celebheights" https://www.celebheights.com/ It is run by a man named Rob Paul, who is a great height guru. In this particular case, he saw Courtney Gains in person. https://www.celebheights.com/s/Courtney-Gains-5254.html She is always looking for the number of celebrities possible, to take a picture with them and find out their height.

I ask you please friend, I appreciated my effort.

88.1.155.239 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon Sadler (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bispham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Simon Sadler’s page

Hi,

Thank you for the revisions on Simon Sadler’s page. I am very new to this and, as you can probably see, I am pretty much making it up as I go along.

I notice that his place of birth is recorded as Bispham in the table. He was born at Lytham Hospital so that would be more accurate.

If you would like any further information about him, please just ask. Baconpage33 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, under occupation, maybe Chief Investment Officer, Segantii Capital Management Ltd would be more accurate. Baconpage33 (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Baconpage33: we don't include hospitals in places of birth. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that. I was more thinking Lytham rather than Blackpool in place of birth. Baconpage33 (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peterhead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Keith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Olde Harbour Inn logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Olde Harbour Inn logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Savannah buildings

I've noticed all of your great articles on historic buildings in Savannah. There are two drafts that a user started, but they need some work. Maybe you could work with him or start with his work. See:

• River Street Inn

• Cotton Sail Hotel

Also the Cotton Exchange deserves an article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Thanks for the heads up. The Cotton Exchange is next on my list. Will be interesting, since I know zero about it. Haven't yet found any evidence of the ballroom referenced in the City Hotel article... - Seasider53 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bubba73: If you check my talk page below, a bunch of historic Savannah buildings have been prod’d. I think you know more about the historic district than I do, but are they not notable by their inclusion in the district? - Seasider53 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, he prod’d them all in the same minute. Not much interest given to the articles, it seems. - Seasider53 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I was worried about that happening. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) probably does apply. The articles are short and there isn't much to say what makes that building significant, other than being part of the Savannah HD. You might could have an article about a square that lists the buildings around it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, good point. I am only creating ones in the eight wards around (hopefully) each square (and selecting other notable ones not on a square), although the northernmost squares have mostly commercial buildings around them. The plus side to that is: less articles to create, since about six houses can go in the space they take up. I think the issue is references. I have a couple of others to add still - Seasider53 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solomon's Lodge, Savannah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

hotel articles

Hi, i made a couple small edits at your new article, 17 Hundred 90 Inn. I'm glad you are contributing! I don't know the bounds of your interests, but I personally would be very happy if you saw fit to develop any of the numerous hotel articles now in Draft space which are indexed at Talk:Historic Hotels of America/Draft articles. I had disagreement with others in the past about these and more, and they got moved to Draft space over my objection and with terms that I could not myself develop them further and directly restore them back to mainspace. But others can. Either way, I am glad you are contributing articles on hotels in Savannah at least. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just picking and choosing my way around town. That list is a bit overwhelming to be honest. I might do the Partridge Inn in Augusta, though, since I've been there and have a few photos. - Seasider53 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for your quick reply. You are such a newbie, though, to say a list of 50 or so is daunting! :) Me and others have been working on lists of 90,000 or so NRHP-listed places for more than 10 years (indexed by List of RHPs, and I have done lots of other lists too, either lists to create new articles or work-lists of articles to refine in some way or another. There is no rush on any of this, but you will find, perhaps, that any finite list can be worked through just by plugging along slowly if/when you feel like it. I do like Wikipedia for allowing me to come and contribute a little bit, go away, come back, whenever. Again, glad you're on board! --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I've been on here for 16 years including previous accounts. - Seasider53 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I stand corrected, and you've been around longer than me then (it seems i created my userpage in mid-2006, almost but not quite 15 years ago, yikes that is still a long time ago). I think this is the first time I've ever asserted a person is a "newbie" on their userpage, and it didn't go well. :( I hope you don't mind, see new Requested move at Talk:124 East Bay Street, too. --Doncram (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, can we please keep discussions on the relevant articles' talk pages? I prefer not to get involved in Wikipedia politics, having lost too much time to it over the years to blowhards (mostly power-tripping admins). - Seasider53 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 35 Houston Street

The article 35 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 31 Houston Street

The article 31 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 26–30 Houston Street

The article 26–30 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 25 Houston Street

The article 25 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 23 Houston Street

The article 23 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 21 Houston Street

The article 21 Houston Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 520–522 East Bryan Street

The article 520–522 East Bryan Street has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NGEO as an unremarkable building with no individual historic designation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 22:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia)

Hi. I just reviewed quite a few stub pages you created about buildings in this historic district. None of them had enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and simply being part of a historic district does give automatic notability. A suggestion would be to create a table in the article, Savannah Historic District (Savannah, Georgia), wherein you give these 1 and 2 sentences a place to live. That article is quite short and bereft of details, and could do with the additional information. If you don't know how to create tables, I'd be happy to help you with it. They can be a bit tricky. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting them in Buildings in Savannah Historic District is also a possibility. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Meh, I'll finish the couple of articles I'm working on and then move on to other things. Seems counterintuitive to remove information, thus creating less information, because there's limited information. - Seasider53 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I know. It seems like some information would be better than no information. Doncram got in trouble creating a lot of two- and three-sentence articles about places, mostly on the National Register of Historic Places. Those hotels that are in his draft space that I told you about are examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Are they in his draft space though? I asked for the draft of River Street Inn, which isn’t in his draft space, to be deleted after creating the article proper, and he undid the request and called me a jerk. There ended my assisting him. - Seasider53 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the difference between draft space and his draft space. Two of the drafts are lined above in Savannah buildings. Otherwise, all I've seen is hotel articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Troup Square buildings

A tag has been placed on Category:Troup Square buildings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)