User talk:Epicgenius

Archives

Archive links by month 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2023: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2024: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2025: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Signpost Sandbox discussions User talk:Epic Failure Other talk pages: Commons talk Wikidata talk Simple English talk

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Very important userboxes MORE This user has more userboxes. This user has an alternative account named Kylo Ren. END This user has no more userboxes.

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the page.

Hey, Epicgenius! So here's the thing about dyk: if you haven't created preps, you have no idea what prep-setters and admins at dyk do or what challenges they face. Many editors who are regular nominators and reviewers think they'd be willing to admin, but have never filled preps, and when they become admins and start moving preps to queues, they quickly realize they didn't know what they were volunteering for. A prep-setter doesn't just create a balanced set. They also do a quick re-review on many of the hooks; you get to know whose hooks you don't have to review too heavily, but you always have to at least go check for a recent edit war or tags. If the nominator or the reviewer are new or known to be sloppy, you'll have to do a full re-review of that hook. Often prep-setters have questions they have to ask at the hook, and they deal with pushback from noms/reviewers/passersby for that. Then once you've finished a prep you have to deal with fallout at DYK talk and ERRORS. Admins do the exact same thing -- a re-review, because prep-setters miss things too, then the move (fairly simple), posting questions at DYK talk and pinging involved parties, dealing with pushback from them, and finally any fallout at ERRORS when someone finds an error you missed. So if you think you would be willing to admin at dyk, definitely go fill preps for a while to see if you like it or not. Some people love it -- I did, and I like adminning there -- but not everyone is cut out for it. It's a high-visibility job. People catch your mistakes, and the only way to prevent that is to catch other people's mistakes first. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, thanks for the advice. That is good to know. I think this sort of stuff should be enjoyable for me, even if a bit difficult. I just read the project page on prep areas, and it seems a bit difficult to get a good balance on hooks. epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the most fun parts of setting preps. The thing to do for your first prep is pick the bottom empty set (which right now gives you three days to fill it but normally six days.) Count to figure out whether the image hook needs a bio or a non-bio (it alternates by day). Go find one, vet it, and transfer it. That'll let the other prep setters know you'll fill that set. Not that they or an admin won't move stuff in and out if they need it or think another set is better for that hook, but in general one prep-setter works on a set. Then start putting the puzzle together -- no more than four bios (alternating in the set with non-bio), no more than one music/science/military/whatever subject. Not too many from any one country, though 2 - 4 USA hooks will be necessary. A balance of geographical area, not all from English-speaking countries. A balance of long and short. And of course a quirky. It's an art. Don't be afraid to trim or tweak hooks, but read the nom first if you do, as there may have already been discussion. Keep on top of talk in case someone asks a question about one of the hooks in that set, because some people won't realize they need to ping you as the promoter. :) Ping me any time, and Yoninah will often leave pointers on how to improve at your talk. When she stops, you know you're getting near the point of competence. :) —valereee (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎

Once again, very impressive work on very important station complex and line articles. There is more to be added about the change in BMT plans re:Canal Street. Eventually, Clark Street Tunnel should be its own article. Also, the citations for IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line are really messed up and include self-published sources like nycsubway.org, and there is more history that could be added. A lot of my older GA nominations should be looked at again for things like this. Also, for Union Square, it is worth mentioning the impromptu 9/11 memorial, and the post-2016 election post-it notes (https://mashable.com/article/power-of-post-it-note-protest-subway-therapy, https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/post-it-notes-left-union-square-election-preserved-article-1.2913344, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/post-election-subway-therapy-sticky-notes-taken-down-but-not-thrown-out/, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/nyregion/subway-election-therapy-wall-sticky-notes.html). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, the pleasure is mine. I do agree that the Clark Street Tunnel should get its own page in the future. I've also noticed that there's a lot more that can be said about the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, especially its construction, and will have to work on it gradually. The biggest mess, though, is the Canal Street article - there are a lot of details about the BMT station that are just not mentioned at the moment, and the article in general needs more refs.

As for the Union Square station, the article already mentions both the 9/11 memorial and the post-it wall (the second paragraph of 14th Street–Union Square station#Artwork). I thought one paragraph would be sufficient, seeing as how the artwork was not sanctioned by the MTA but seems to be covered by multiple reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I missed it somehow. Don't forget the Stantec studies, like the one that found making Clark Street accessible was infeasible, and which provides some sourcing for station layout (i.e. platform length/width). Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also is probably worth mentioning the 1990 fire in the Clark Street article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and can get around to that soon. In the meantime, I was looking at the study for Union Square, which says: This technology does not meet ADA standards, and since there is currently no technology that does, there is no fully accessible solution for the southbound platform. We are including an option for providing elevator service to this platform in this report with the understanding that this will not provide a fully accessible solution at this time. So I suppose this means the southbound platform can get an elevator, it just won't be ADA-accessible because gap fillers, by their very nature, are ADA-inaccessible. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Also, unrelated, but the 1990 Clark Street Tunnel fire was very notable, and there were major reports done on fire safety/communication, etc. in its aftermath. It would warrant an article of its own. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the 1990 Clark Street fire should get its own article. (I think the fire happened just east of the Clark Street station, though, not in the tunnel under the river.) In terms of recent NYC Subway disasters, the fire has had at least as much of an impact as the 1991 Union Square derailment or the 1995 Williamsburg Bridge subway collision did. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also-the provisions in the Eastern Parkway Line used for the Clark Street Tunnel connection were initially intended for a line over the Manhattan Bridge. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. If we can find a reliable source for this, I could add it to the Borough Hall or Eastern Parkway Line articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen reliable sources for this-if you cannot find them, I can look for them after I get my final paper for the semester done today. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft Clark Street Tunnel article here: User:Kew Gardens 613/sandbox 7#Clark Street Tunnel. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this article before? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, I have, but thanks for clipping it. The first part of that source seems to largely duplicate the New York Herald Tribune ref that's already in the Fulton Street station article. But it has some info that isn't mentioned in the NYHT source, specifically the 535-foot length of the station. The second part of the source could be used for the Broad Street station article though. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding work on the article. We really shouldn't be using The Station Reporter as a source. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff to be added about flooding/water intrusion problems at Canal. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a report put out. I found two articles I had clipped (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times/98305321/, https://www.newspapers.com/article/times-union/99774843/) Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've noticed quite a bit of info about how Canal Street's proximity to the old Collect Pond contributed to tons of water problems there. I can add these sources in later. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a paper, not a report. I haven't found it online. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This journal is a great source for construction details. I found one article with details on underpinning and other aspects of subway construction from 1919, one on sewer siphons, SI transportation, and Columbus Circle construction Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. I might have to look through this journal to, um, shore up some architectural articles as well. That Canal Street article was really detailed, and I expect the others will be no different. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also one on train dispatching, the Manhattan Bridge Plaza, and the ENY tunnel Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming here, but also Joralemon, and here, excavation, the Atlantic Av improvement, and Brighton Line improvements Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will just add all these links to a subsection of User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do, where we can both track it easily. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signaling, car design, and ventilation, and IRT track design as well Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is this thorough masterpiece on Dual Contracts construction. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 30 days. Epicgenius (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 60 days. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 360 days. Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613, by the way, we might want to flesh out User:Epicgenius/sandbox/article-draft1, my sandbox on the Manhattan Bridge subway closure. I'm planning to bring the Manhattan Bridge article to GA, which will probably require condensing the Manhattan Bridge#Trackage history section, and the closures are a notable topic that I've been meaning to finish writing about for a while. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius I have been very busy, but, when I have a chance, will try to get back to this. Amazing work on all the bridge articles. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025-2029 Capital Program recently came out. Some articles may need to be updated to reflect this. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs history section
• Needs design section, which I will write shortly
• Needs destruction section
• "List of tenants" may need to be split to a separate article due to length
• "92nd Floor" section needs removed and incorporated into above "Destruction" section

• Needs history section
• Needs design section
• Needs destruction section
• Potentially needs rewrite, after reading it I spotted a few errors

• Actually has a history section, but needs expanded
• Rewrite Destruction section
• May need a "design" section

• Has history and destruction sections
• Both need expanded
• More images needed

• Half of the article is about 9/11, meaning half of the article is about 1 day when the structure existed for 31 years
• Needs a design section
• Either the gallery section needs removed or expanded to comply with MOS, it's currently just 3 images chilling around

• Needs architecture section
• Needs more history pre-2001
• The destruction section may need to be summarized per WP:SUMSTYLE

I added the above subheaders just in case we need a list of things to do. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Thanks for starting this section. I might move this to User:Epicgenius/sandbox/to do when we're done figuring out what to do (since idk where else to put it). Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Construction of the World Trade Center has some info about the Twin Towers' structural design, so we can copy some of the relevant info into these articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Epicgenius! The article you nominated, Daily News Building, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Riverside Drive (Manhattan) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alachuckthebuck -- Alachuckthebuck (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J. J. Walser Jr. House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chicago's deteriorating J. J. Walser Jr. House (pictured) has not been repaired because it is unclear who owns the house? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. J. Walser Jr. House. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, J. J. Walser Jr. House), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 27,364 views (1,140.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you! ... and also for more quality content in the field --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's main page has again memories of three people who died, for two just the name and for the third an image (great!) coupled with a little bit from her life which seems too little for my taste. What do you think? - A friend of mine sang in Verdi's Requiem at Trinity Church, - you can watch the lifestream (Verdi about 30 minutes into it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four DYK about FLW house in one week, wow! - Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, a story about patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Riverside Drive (Manhattan) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan) for comments about the article, and Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alachuckthebuck -- Alachuckthebuck (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epicgenius, on 25 February 2025 you removed the {{Citation style}} tag from West Germanic languages in this edit, saying Remove tag. The use of mixed short and full citations is not indicative of inconsistent citation styles if the full refs are all formatted the same way as the bibliography. May I please ask which bit(s) of the MOS and/or guidelines support(s) this reasoning, as it means whether citations are short or full isn't part of "citation style" and therefore not covered by WP:CITEVAR. Elrondil (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elrondil, good question. WP:CITEVAR says that imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit is helpful. However, my interpretation of that guideline is that it doesn't cover whether the references in a reflist are short or full—just whether the citations use a standard format such as WP:CS1, WP:CS2, or a manual format regardless of where they're defined—and that requiring an article to use exclusively {{sfn}} templates or full citation templates is overstepping the guidance outlined in WP:CITEVAR. The only exception, as far as I can tell, is the now-deprecated parenthetical referencing format, in which the citations are in the prose itself, not in a footnote of some kind (either shortened or full).

This is also consistent with the practice adopted by many good and featured articles, which may use a mixture of {{sfn}}s and full citations for one of two reasons:

• Sometimes, full citations are used for non-paginated sources or for sources with one page or page range, while the {{sfn}} citations are used for sources with multiple page ranges. This prevents the need to repeat a multi-page source in full every time a different page range is used (something that WP:CITESHORT recommends against), or to use a {{sfn}} for sources that are only used once. In these cases, the multi-page sources are typically in a separate "bibliography" section and are formatted the same way as the non-paginated or single-page sources, e.g. as CS1 or CS2 citations.
• Within the same article, full citations are also sometimes used consistently for certain types of sources, such as {{cite web}}, while {{sfn}} would be used for other types of sources such as {{cite book}}. Again, these are usually formatted the same way aside from the fact that the underlying full citations for the {{sfn}} templates are in a separate section.

Finally, searching through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, I couldn't find any discussions that recommend against {{sfn}} and full citations in the reflist. By my understanding, the use of mixed {{sfn}}s and full cites in the reflist isn't usually a consideration when people think about CITEVAR, especially since this is done rather frequently in featured articles (as I alluded to), despite WP:FACR requiring a consistent citation style. However, if you think that the use of mixed {{sfn}}s and full cites in the reflist is inconsistent, it would be a good idea to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I don't interpret it as you do because (1) going back to first principles, how citations are referenced (that is, as full or short) is a part of the "form, appearance, or character" of citing and thus the dictionary definition of style, and (2) WP:CITEVAR both (a) names differences between "citations in footnotes" (i.e., full) and "parenthetical references" as examples of differences in "citation styles" and (b) states that making these consistent (in the very context of "citation styles") is an "improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit".

However, I asked because I thought you might have insight new to me, which you did, so thank you for that.

Bringing anything up at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources is pointless. Still, two of my goals currently are (1) make articles more readable (which includes consistent and usable citations), and (2) try to improve citations present in articles so these citations actually serve their purpose. However, making citations consistent is currently futile I think, as having a dog's breakfast of both short and long styles (or style families?!?!) is apparently a style of its own (defined by the article itself) that must not be disturbed without consensus ... that cannot possibly be achieved for some articles with the sets editors that currently inhabit these articles. So when it comes to citing, both the style manual and the guidelines are currently failing us all IMO, because quality needs proper citing, but at least linking short citations with their full ones for easier verifiability seems to be fine. Elrondil (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article United Engineering Center, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that a former U.S. president helped dedicate the United Engineering Center, and a future U.S. president demolished it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United Engineering Center. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, United Engineering Center), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seth Peterson Cottage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Staniulis -- Staniulis (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 7: WikiWednesday Salon @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. This month's WikiWednesday will be focused on digital safety for editors. Guest digital security trainers will join us to lead this session. All are welcome! Please bring a laptop or the editing device of your choosing for hands-on training that will guide you through steps to take to make yourself safer online. While there will also be an online participation option, the meeting will not be recorded. Meeting info: Wednesday, May 7 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan Also online via Zoom
May 10: Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome
You are also invited to join the Wikimedia NYC Community and Rhizome for a community memory-focused edit-a-thon in the Financial District. All Wikipedia and Wikidata enthusiasts are welcome, new and experienced! Please RSVP on Rhizome's event page to gain entry to the venue. Meeting info: Saturday, May 10 Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome (additional on-wiki RSVP optional). 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm 161 Water Street, Financial District, Manhattan All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Price Tower you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bernard Schwartz House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Bernard Schwartz House was built after Schwartz saw a plan by Frank Lloyd Wright in Life magazine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Schwartz House. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bernard Schwartz House), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Seth Peterson Cottage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seth Peterson Cottage for comments about the article, and Talk:Seth Peterson Cottage/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Staniulis -- Staniulis (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Riverside Drive (Manhattan) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan) for comments about the article, and Talk:Riverside Drive (Manhattan)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alachuckthebuck -- Alachuckthebuck (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gordon House (Silverton, Oregon), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Oregon Garden obtained the Gordon House because of a misunderstanding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gordon House (Silverton, Oregon). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gordon House (Silverton, Oregon)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about 'basement'. You added text "... there is no attic or basement." Yet later on is a section starting

In the basement is a boiler, ...

Shenme (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I copied another article's lead by accident. There is a basement. Thanks for bringing it up. Epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Price Tower you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Price Tower and Talk:Price Tower/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Price Tower you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Price Tower for comments about the article, and Talk:Price Tower/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]