User talk:Milowent

Talk Page Archives: 2008-09|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|2016|2017|2018|2019|2020|2021

		Congratulations!
		The Anne Rice Award honors editors who have improved Wikipedia's coverage of women writers by creating a biography of a woman writer who, like Anne Rice, used a pen name, nom de plume, literary initials, or pseudonym on the title page or by-line of her works in place of her real name. On behalf of WP:WPWW, thank you for creating the biography on Anne Hampton Brewster, who sometimes wrote as Enna Duval. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please strike the "buzzkill" comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe, Kansas (2nd nomination), as it can be seen as a personal attack. Also, I agree with your position on the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul McDonald, thanks for your calm manner, i added a disclaimer since the editor already responded. And thanks for work on the AFD! Some of my AfD battles about a decade ago were quite the kerfuffle, but I'm now even wiser and calmer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easy to lose composure, and a constant struggle. No worries.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul McDonald, I hear ya. We've both been around well over a decade, I see myself citing some discussion on your talkpage 11 years ago in some silliness at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#User:Milowent. May Monroe outlive us.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't open this!

WP:DOB was updated last year as a result of an RfC that's now noted in DOB: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_165#People's_birthdate,_conflicting_(reliable)_sources,_and_WP:SYNTHESIS. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nostradamus Effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Courier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milowent. I just wanted to make you aware that Hipal has reignited the conflict regarding Scott Baio's birth year that you so graciously (and humorously) helped to resolve almost four weeks ago. Stoarm (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's gone off the deep end with his latest thread. His crusade over the issue has now gone on for almost four years. You seem to be the only involved editor that he's actually taken (somewhat) seriously. Maybe you can reason with him and get him to understand that simply letting it go and moving on would be the best move? Stoarm (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stoarm, are they proposing to change the text of the article itself, or just trim the references? If the text stays as is, it doesn't seem worth fighting too much about a culling of the references.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, they've only talked about removing refs. But it's more than just a trim. They want to remove four refs, including one of the two Baio tweets from his official account, both which are vital to settling the dispute. However, based on the editor's historical behavior in other disputes, it is very likely that even if the refs issue gets settled, they will subsequently demand changes to the text of the article itself. As you'll see from all of the many talk page threads about this dispute, if another editor in any way disagrees with the version the editor wants (demands), they will often completely ignore what that editor is saying, deflect, and very vaguely cite a laundry list of various policies, guidelines, essays, and other pages, and do so completely out of context or with no context at all. When one asks specifically which part of the policy, guidline, etc. they are referring to, they will not tell you. It appears their overall modus operandi is simply to drive disagreeing editors crazy until they get so fed up that they just walk away. I don't think anything in the article needs changed since we already had a great resolution a month ago. But if you want to "negotiate" an end to this years-long dispute with the edtior, I will support whatever resolution you feel is best, as long as no more than three refs are removed, both Baio tweets stay, and the article text stays as-is. Your people skills and debate skills are excellent, so if there's anyone who can put an end to this nonsense once and for all, I would put my money on you. Stoarm (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ok, Stoarm, I'll try to keep an eye on it. There's no rush if the article text isn't changing. I don't mind reverting things that require it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Stoarm (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanie Loves Chachi. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacked (film) has been nominated for deletion. You previously participated in an AFD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film) and found three sources which convinced others to keep it. Two of those sources are now dead links. Dream Focus 09:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream!!! Glad to see we are both still kicking around, thanks for the note. I'm not at AFD too much these days but its interesting to see ones we were on 10-15 years ago sometimes come back up.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pennsylvania Land Trust Association 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/Pennsylvania Land Trust Association (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks. 199.80.8.254 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please intervene on the John Williams page. Someone keeps deleting his February 8, 1932 birthdate, despite NUMEROUS sources that confirm it as the date. Pleae and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:51A8:5576:E84:2005 (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, Please do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Toddst1, dude!!! I am infallible!! Seriously though, the NY Times article said he turned 90 on Tuesday, which based on publication date tracks to February 8, 1932.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally called out in WP:SYN: do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If you're going to argue with someone, you should try to understand the basic policies they've explicitly called out in reverting your edit. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tuira River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vista Alegre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Milowent, Vince McMahon has been in the news quite a bit lately with his recent comeback. I have noticed the photo on the article dates from 2006, and I think it would be a good idea to change for a photo no more than 5 years old. I am not adept or knowledgeable on how to change photos, so I just thought I would bring it to your attention. He simply has changed appearances in the last 17 years (as most people do), and my opinion is that the article is not really up to date fully with an old photo. Thanks for your attention. 64.141.54.166 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently ran across a comment in an AFD I made in 2010 where i mentioned WP:HOTTIE as a joke. This was a silly essay (marked as humor) that essentially said "hotties are always notable." It wasn't limited to females, but that was its obvious intended subtext. The essay was later userfied and eventually deleted in 2014 (as appropriately being noted as past its prime). Here is an archive copy from 2010. [1] Sitting here in 2023, I can't imagine wanting to make a similar joke about female attractiveness as a basis for notability. But I'm sorry I did so then too. Wikipedia is fascinating in how you can look (if you dig) into how the culture matured and developed over time.Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century heat waves has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what a difference a Decade—and a boatload of previously unavailable, recently digitized news sources—Makes. Greetings, Milowent. Just to refresh your memory, a little over 10 years ago, while still in my Wikipedia infancy and woefully ill-equipped to create any article, I foolishly started one about my late, mystery-writing—and, prior to that, radio-scripting—mother, Jane Speed, armed with little more than a memorial bio penned by my late father and a great quantity of private correspondence and documents shared via my Flickr account—thus both wasting fellow Wikipedians' time and, worse still, doing a grave disservice to what I've only recently come to realize was an even more impressive and fascinating, albeit fragmented career than suggested by my over-reaching, under-researched 'opus.' 

Long story short, it's a very different article now. Putting aside, for the moment, the quality and/or wiki-worthiness of my prose, I think we can both agree that, speaking purely in terms of the subject's notability, that standard—as per both WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMPORARY—has been met. Anyway, I very much appreciate you taking the time to read both this message, and, as your schedule permits, my as-yet-unpublished reboot itself. I look forward to hearing from you. DavidESpeed (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DavidESpeed, great to hear from you. A DECADE, wow! I see its in mainspace now, i'll keep an eye on it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yikes! My bad. I should've updated this yesterday, as soon as I decided to go ahead and publish. Moreover, I neglected to mention how pleased I was—recalling your exceedingly constructive contribution to that ancient tribunal (coupled—why am I not surprised?—with your ongoing focus on article rescue)—to see that you are one of the few participants still standing (wiki-wise, at least). In any event, any further feedback regarding the article—questions, suggestions, impressions—would be most welcome. DavidESpeed (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Milowent. I could really use your assistance and—depending on your verdict—intervention at this moment (and God knows, how I wish now that I had waited just a little longer for your response to my initial message before boldly placing a much-revised, but undeniably once-deleted wiki in the crosshairs again). "Jane Speed" has just been removed from mainspace by onel5969, a self-described encyclopedist, who makes specific reference to WP:UPE and/or WP:COI, as well as verifiability. Looking at the bright side, this person has elected not—or, at least, not yet—to delete, but rather relocate to the 6-month purgatory of draftspace. Now, it occurs to me that, despite your gracious response to my May 4 message, I never did get any specific feedback. I'm still not clear as to whether "keeping an eye on" means you've actually read the new version or have yet to do so, though I guess I had taken that assurance—plus the fact that you've not contacted me since—as a tacit thumbs-up. Either way, and for better or worse (not to mention as soon as possible), I need—now, more than ever—to get your honest opinion as to the article's Wiki-worthiness (both in terms of presentation and—as best you can now discern—the inherent notability of Jane Speed's career[s] (both in general and, as regards my specific reference to WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMPORARY). More to the point, if in fact your verdict differs substantially in either regard from said encyclopedist, it would behoove onel5969 to get that input. Here is a link to the message informing me of that removal. Thanks in advance. DavidESpeed (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DavidESpeed, by moving the article back in the purgatory of "draft", onel5969 is giving you a path to getting formal approval, where you can submit the draft for review. When i said I'd keep on eye on it, i just "watchlisted" it, in case it got sent to AfD. Otherwise i just scanned it briefly. In looking back at our conversations in 2012 (see User_talk:Milowent/Archive_4#Jane_Speed_(unseen_edits?) and my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Speed, and the new version, i remain concerned that the article may not meet WP:GNG. Which means a reviewer may not want to promote it out of draftspace. I don't have time to look through the 107 cites to the current article -- can you tell me which are the five best citations are that would support notability? Ideally this would be a significant obituary and/or other newspaper/periodical profiles of the subject. The way the article is written is a fine format, and if these facts had been the subject of notable newspaper/other coverage, that helps to show notability. There are literally billions of valuable humans who made contributions to our planet and humanity that are meaningful and good, but will never have a wikipedia article because they don't meet WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Milowent, sorry for the delay. I was waiting to get word on something directly pertaining to your request before getting back to you, and so I have. It turns out that Ryan Ellett, author of The Encyclopedia of Radio Drama and Comedy Writers, 1928 – 1962, is going to start work early next month on an article on Jane's career for The Old Radio Times (Old Time Radio Researchers' E-zine), which should be appearing in late June. Kind of bittersweet, really, since that's precisely the sort of thing—i.e. "newspaper/periodical profiles [or] a significant obituary"—that was never going to happen bitd (i.e. during her life or immediately thereafter), partly because she never got around to trying to publish a collection of her stories (something editor Joan Kahn almost certainly would’ve been up for), and partly just because of the fragmented nature of her career, what with Akron, and more particularly, the Akron Beacon Journal completely losing track of her during that 10-year hiatus btw radio and mystery writing. Anyway, speaking of the ABJ, here are some of those citations (and please forgive me for including so many, but don't despair; only one of these is more than a paragraph, and several, not even that). The most ink by far, plus plenty of photo ops, came in Akron, where she was clearly something of a rock star; and then there's that seemingly out-of-left-field yet meticulously staged and lovingly photographed 15-second film career. But the prize quote comes much later, from the SF Examiner critic, characterizing her and five fellow mystery writers—all considerably better known than she—as "some of the most respected names in the profession":
    "Miss Krisher; Directs Play". The Akron Beacon Journal. October 31, 1935. p. 12.
    "Cast in Two University Productions; Jane Krisher Has Roles in Northwestern Plays; Others Honored; Jane Krisher, Popular Dramatist". The Akron Beacon Journal. May 5, 1940. p. 54.
    Doran, Dorothy (September 19, 1941). "Around the Dial: Top Radio Shows of Other Seasons Stay in Spotlight; Paragraphs: Jane Krisher, young scripter". The Akron Beacon Journal. p. 36.
    "Here's Who's Who in Weathervane Group". The Akron Beacon Journal. September 24, 1941. p. 13
    Doran, Dorothy (October 2, 1941). "Around the Dial: 'Mortimer Meek' Will Come Back in Weekly Show; Local Cast". The Akron Beacon Journal. p. 32.
    Offineer, Bee (June 6, 1946). "Around the Dial: Reminders". The Akron Beacon Journal. p. 16.
    Carrington, Elaine (January 8, 1947). "Queen of Soapers Asks: Does Radio Want New Writers?". Variety. p. 110.
    "Up-to-the-Minute Casting News". The Hollywood Reporter. Jun 16, 1947. p. 9.
    Jane Speed filmography. American Film Institute.
    Hammerston, Claude (August 31, 1950). "Radio Highlights: Rollicking Comedy". The Ottawa Citizen. p. 23.
    "Tuesday, December 22 (Cont'd)". The Ross Reports on Television. December 21-27, 1953. p. 8.
    Queen, Ellery (1965). Ellery Queen's 20th anniversary annual; 20 stories from 'Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. New York: Random House. p. 247.
    "Jane Speed – Ende Des Tages". ARD®Hörspieldatenbank.
    Lachtman, Howard (August 21, 1983). "Lachtman on Mysteries". The San Francisco Examiner Magazine. p. 5.
    Koeller, Wanda (May 15, 1988). "Scare Me Just a Little". The McAllen Monitor. p. 57.
    Constant, Paul (August 13, 2018). "Your Week in Readings: The best literary events from August 13th - August 19th". The Seattle Review of Books.
    Thanks again, DavidESpeed (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DavidESpeed, no worries re the delay, there's no deadline to finish Wikipedia. The problem with these brief mentions is that don't make a great case for passing WP:GNG. They are great for genealogical type research. That being said, I can't say that a reviewing editor for deciding whether to promote it out of draftspace won't think its enough. But an article of the type you mention above that might come up next month, you might wait for that first before submitting.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking I'd give you a little respite from JS, I scanned your recent contributions for any loose ends I might help with. Regarding this one, and specifically your query re "War Against Wars," the good news is, that question is answered (and a notable sibling added). Bad news is, Endre didn't exactly write it (said sibling did, based on his story), nor is there any evidence that it actually won an Emmy—nor, for that matter, that Endre—as opposed to his brother, László—ever wrote anything directly for the screen, big or small. Another question mark is that allegedly Endre-founded Hungarian Theater (or Theatre—or Theater Company?), any trace of which has proven incredibly elusive, bordering on mythological. Anyway, take a look, see what you think. DavidESpeed (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Thanks for looking into Endre, I was a bit nonplussed when i created that, that i couldn't find more. I'll go back to it. Winning the Emmy per the NY Times obit seemed like a case for notability. When I wrote that I was scanning old NY Times obits corresponding to the current day (e.g., Endre's obit was Dec 3, 1969, i started article Dec 3, 2022). Robert L. Meyer may be the most interesting one i created in that stretch, an anti-nixon republican that got run out of his position, and then died of an apparent heart attack at age 49. That might seem suspicious (and did to some) but its amazing how many ny times obit white men died in their 50s of heart attacks in the 1960s and 1970s, it was normal and not even noteworthy of special mention. indeed, nowadays, dying very old can hurt someone's "chance" to be notable, because their accomplishments are already decades past when they die, and may be overlooked and not get big obituaries. And since women tend to live longer than men, and traditionally got less than equal coverage than men, that contributes to wikipedia coverage biases that favor men.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you're doing well and only growing younger. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, you too!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things named after Tolkien works has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Milowent, I enjoy your edits on here and I figured I'd say hello! I am particularly delighted by your addition of the noble shower beer to the encyclopedia. I thought you might appreciate that today I made my most enjoyable Wikipedia contribution to date. Thanks for all you do and see you around! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I think every Wikipedian should follow your example and keep a public list of the times they went crazy. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, Crunchydillpickle🥒, thanks for stopping by! That photo was desperately needed, that's great!! I just perused your creation list, and just with The ick and Betty Crocker Homemakers of Tomorrow, I can see we are like minded students of humanity. Cheers!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Betty Crocker Homemakers of Tomorrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect HIM (Finnish band has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § HIM (Finnish band until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cousins Properties 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) 02:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, someone put in a better image 14 years after the one i did. lol.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can that silly IP editor be dealt with? 2604:3D09:927F:E900:1571:6115:1C45:4A00 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• it may take a little time. The arc of the moral Wikipedia universe is long, but it bends towards justice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Norman Lear. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article back to 16 August 2024, before this all started. Either find consensus to make changes on the talk page of the article BEFORE making such changes, or a block will result. This also applies to Room 222. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey there, Hammersoft, thanks for stepping in. I stepped back from the article yesterday [2]. i do like to be silly and a bit antagonistic at times with editors that go off on some odd mission, but i've gone 17 years without a block for a reason. my incredible good looks. again, thanks for not letting it get out of hand.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you nailed it. It was your incredible good looks that saved the day. Thankfully your other attributes are not like Gaston hahaha :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago, you mentioned something in passing there being some research on the ideal size of a high school. Do you have any sources about this? High school doesn't seem to say anything about the number of students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello there, WhatamIdoing -- oh my, a comment from over 13 years ago and i didn't add a cite at the time. It may have been this [3] or maybe this [4]. It certainty has been a subject of research. In the context of my 2011 comment, I knew that 150 students as a total enrollment is considered quite small for an American high school. Though in small communities those can well be notable too because Americans LOVE their high schools and write about them in the news.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! The first neatly confirms my intuitive guess (i.e., that >2,000 is too big, and that very small has its own problems). I read something a few years ago about rural depopulation that indicated that there are two main factors for killing a rural town: the first is that the elementary school closes, and the second is that the grocery store closes. People are willing to drive for other things, and they're willing to put their kids on a bus for an hour each way, but they don't want the little kids spending that much time in transit, and they don't want to risk running out of basic foods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that makes a lot of sense, WhatamIdoing. I've spent a lot of time at AfD rescuing articles on small midwestern US locations, when valid sourcing exists, e.g., Monroe, Kansas. I really find the whole concept of the Depopulation of the Great Plains fascinating. It seems like many of these places *could* support a viable community of a few thousand people (with an elementary school and grocery store), if jobs existed. They have land, roads, infrastructure for water, electricity, etc., even if expansion would be needed. But the risk for an employer is huge, since the population and housing stock required isn't even there yet. (E.g., Lena Park, Indiana was somewhere between a scam and a pipe dream, but the one factory they got couldn't find workers.) Even if something like the California Forever plan goes through, that is just going to be a huge Bay Area ex-urb. Can a decent size city be created from scratch in western Kansas or Nebraska to fill the population hole between Omaha and Denver? I don't see why not, except for all the seed money it would take.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in the depopulation of the Great Plains. I think sometimes that the solution is to have more ghost towns. Taking Monroe as an example, Lincoln County, Kansas has a population of less than 3,000 people. Why not encourage them all to move to one city, whether that be the small town of Lincoln Center or the nearest "big" city (which appears to be Salina), and turn the rest into a nature preserve? It'd probably cost a few billion and take many years, but it's not impossible. There are probably better examples, but unifying neighbors in an existing place seems better to me than trying to bring outsiders in to a new place.

I'm going to see if I can add something to High school with those sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]