Please see the New York Times story entitled "Sale of the Main Line of Public Works of Pennsylvania" published in that newspaper on June 26, 1857 reporting the sale of the "Main Line of Public Works" of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Railroad for $7,500,000 made in Philadelphia the previous day. I added this reference to the Main Line of Public Works article last week where it appears in the references section as footnote #6. As this citation provides proof positive that this is the name by which this complex transportation system of railroad and canal works built by the state in the first half of the of the 19th century was known at the time (and is therefore clearly not an invented term coined "for academic studies years later", I have again removed the "[need quotation to verify]" tag that you reapplied to the article earlier today presumably because you did not see that this citation that you had requested had already been added to the article. Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the due diligence, but not sure a single newspaper article is any less an awkwardly constructed term, nor that it should be kept as a separate article. Who would ever search for it that way, and why should it be sundered from the main cultural context (and indeed duplicate said content) as well. I'll think on it a few days and for now keep the Mergeto tag on. Note I have not hung a corresponding Mergefrom tag pending these discussions. (Cross-posting the article talk) // FrankB15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an humorous aside... note the title I'm objecting to likely came about because of LAWYERS being involved! LOL // FrankB20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually found 13 additional stories published in just the New York Times beginning as early as 1854 which include the term "Main Line of Public Works" as the name of this railroad/canal system. Perhaps I also have somewhat of an advantage in being familiar with this as well as I have lived since 1971 just three blocks from the Ardmore railroad station on this grade (now called the "Keystone Corridor") in the part of the Philadelphia's western suburbs which is still called the "Main Line". I have also been a professional writer for more than 45 years and among my seven published books are four on North American railroad history so I am very familiar with this term and its history. (See additional background information hereCentpacrr (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't surprise me once you pointed the cite by the board and recommendation to the stock holders. Such a property transference would be politically controversial--there are always opposing factions in public-private interfacing events. (Heh! Just recalling local town hearings I've attended! Talk about understatements!!! LOL) Would be fun to take a day and read all those just to feel the flavor of the times!
Per the talk page, I'm no longer contesting the term, but the concern as always for me is the meaning and usefulness of the term. (I just closed an edit and linked it, so even I can learn! <g>) Further, you are perhaps missing the point that "As early as 185x" is LATE TO ME... I'm objecting because the article is linked as if it were history of the CANAL's hey day of operations... not because it's invalid historically (or insignificant, as I first suspected). The term has no validity until the political folderal discussing and proposing closing the Commission and sale to the PRR. That is all. As a writer with such a distinguished background, you can perhaps appreciate that. Try surveying a dozen what links here uses and see if it isn't being used out of context as when I came across it.
I was and am looking at 'founding's history', which is where I find it being misused as a kind of shotgun. The use of the term is OKAY provided the text in various places puts in the correct contexts. Perhaps more to the point, it is a handle for a bundle of properties. Do you cover other assets the Commission held and transferred elsewhere. Did the PRR operate the locks. dams and pumps, and so forth. It's a term just hanging out there without conveying a self-meaning, so to speak. In sum... THE CONTEXT OF THREE DECADES is going "Vanished" here on the Wikipedia. That means we aren't conveying the whole picture, and are doing any conveying unskillfully... SINS TO BE DAMNED FOR! <BSEG> (to me!) ~:)) or should that be ~8(> In any event, let's both think on it a day or two. Left alone, it still wouldn't be the worse title of an article page here by a long shot. Likely not even a contender for the top 100 worst! LOL // FrankB16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion you have over the term is when it was first used to describe the system which was long before the Pennsylvania Railroad bought the system from the state in 1857. All of the various sources I have looked at indicate that this is the name by which the system was known when it became fully operational in 1834 and continued to be called until sold to the PRR. For further details I refer you to "The Pennsylvania Railroad Company: The Corporate, Financial and Construction History of Lines Owned, Operated and Controlled To December 31, 1945, Volume I The Pennsylvania Railroad Proper." Chapter: "The Main Line of Public Works" pp. 109-135. (Coverdale & Colpitts, Consulting Engineers, New York 1946).
The Act of May 16, 1857 that authorized its sale was entitled "An Act for the Sale of The Main Line of Public Works" and states in part: "Section 1. That it shall be the duty of the governor, within ten days after approving this act, to cause to be advertised daily until the day of sale, in one or more newspapers of extensive circulation, or published in the cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Boston, New York, and in the borough of Harrisburg, a notice that the Main Line of Public Works will be exposed to public sale at the Merchants' Exchange, or some other public place in the city of Philadelphia, on a day to be selected by him, not more than forty days after the passage of this act. ... Section 2. That at the time and place so selected, it shall be the duty of the governor to have offered at public sale the whole Main Line of Public Works, to wit: the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad; the canal from Columbia to the Junction at Duncan's Island; the Juniata canal from thence to Hollidaysburgh; the Allegheny Portage railroad, including the new road to avoid the inclined planes, and the canal from Johnstown to Pittsburgh, with all the property thereto appertaining, or in anywise connected therewith." Charle Dickens wrote a description of travel over the route in his book "American Notes" published in 1842. If these two articles were to ever be merged it seems to me that the "host" article would "The Main Line of Public Works" with the shorter "Pennsylvania Canal" article be appended to it as a subsection and not the other way around. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You're serious about "All ... was known when it became fully operational in 1834 and continued to be called until sold to the PRR"... ???? How (under what 'entity name') were tickets issued? If you're sure that was it's operating name I cede the argument and humbly apologize for wasting your time. Me thinks it would have been the Pennsylvania Canal Commission or system, not that mouthful! I'm flabbergasted, but that's unpredictable Pennsylvania at it's best, I guess. // FrankB02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the system as a whole was known as the Main Line of Public Works of Pennsylvania as an overall legal entity. The riding public bought their passenger tickets under the names of the various divisions (canals, railroads, and their branch lines) such as "Philadelphia & Columbia RR", "Allegheny Portage RR", "Pennsylvania Canal", etc. You can see a map of what the entire system looked like at the time of its sale to the PRR in 1857 here, and the schedule for the Phila & Columbia RR as it appeared in the American Railway Guide and Pocket Companion in 1851 here. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer about this. Centpacrr (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real confusion, once the source of the name is given as context in context. I am expecting and was focused on the cultural name, not the legal. Likewise one bought tickets on the CNJ, not the Lehigh and Susquehanna who leased them the trackage et. al., so business/cultural names were expected. We just need to write such so the distinction is clear in context to the casual passerby, or to someone who has followed a link that some 16 year old has added to an article sans context. We also need be careful with such articles to make sure component articles aren't hacked up and cut down skipping important historical context because someone figures such an article covers the matter. Some hyperlinks, out of period are or can be contextually deceptive, as I pointed out. In any event, good work. Thanks for the time. If you wouldn't mind taking an occasional historic railroad question, drop me an email at username=at=gmail.com. Best regards // FrankB03:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't already have one, I would suggest that you invest in a copy of the 835-page Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company published by the PRR in 1946. The American Book Exchange (ABE) site currently has 21 copies of it listed for sale starting at $25.
As for the Main Line of Public Works article, the only contributions I have ever made to it prior to the current discussion with you about merger and the origin of the name was to add an image of the Philadelphia and Columbia depot in Philadelphia to it last June 3rd so it is not really my article. (Because i had added that image is why your edit showed up on my watch list.) The reason I chimed in is that I live just a stone's throw from the Main Line grade and knew that the "Main Line of Public Works" was its correct historic name.
You can contact me about railroad history questions via email at either "centpacrr-at-comcast.net" or "BCC-at-CPRR.org". Among my many writings on my CPRR.org site that you may find of particular interest are this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. You can also find a fair number of my images of the Main Line grade between Narberth and Rosemont (just west of Philadelphia) among the over 300 of my railroad photographs available at the NERAIL photo archive here. Centpacrr (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I'll pick that one up. I'm afraid my RR history section is underpopulated comparative to other interests, despite the fact I'm overflowing seven bookcases as well as two half cases—I'd dropped the modeling interests for nearly a decade before I found Trainz and learning to run the software was easiest in limited time available just developing a few fictional/fantasy routes. Then there is always this timesink... I almost always have some article to get back to fixing up or one missing I feel needs at least stubbed in. That Canal Era article is a recent one, as well as several geographic articles that tie into the railfanning we did last summer. Trying to reference pics to places and historical researches discovered those shortcomings.
I took a quick look at the half the links, but am sure I'll be forwarding those links to my group. You have style! Brain is shutting down tonight so may browse instead of editing. There is one I should finish. I think I left a few paras half refactored with an interim save. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing tonight anyway-my eyes do this varying acuity-out of focus thing on occasion that is bad this evening, perhaps because I read a lot today.
And you rotated it too! Very good. Thanks my friend, installing it now! Got this notice as was just returning to edit that! LOL You not only have style, but have great timing too! // FrankB03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land battery until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
MordeKyle - Unlike many around here, I focus on building the encyclopedia rather than deleting the work product generated during others very precious leisure time.
Note how considerate of such times I was by linking to titles others might need access, and by starting the disambig page.
In the future, YOUmight try considering giving articles time to gell and gestate.
Had you done so, you might have seen the link go from red to blue for: THIS STUB ... Things take time to write you know. Or would if you wrote in stead of hanging tags. Do try being an editor, not an impediment. The MOS is not a bible. That role belongs to [[WP:|IAR]]. // FrankB03:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lausanne–Nescopeck Turnpike
The article titled Lausanne–Nescopeck Turnpike seems to have had an identity crisis. The first half (really the lead, but we'll come back to that) seems to be about a road. The body seemed to be about a historic community. Given the topic implied by the title, I split the latter out to Lausanne Landing, Pennsylvania. There's no need to shoehorn separate topics into one article just because the latter is a historic community. Such communities are perfect valid topics for stand-alone articles. Imzadi 1979→04:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please SPEND YOUR TIME writing and STOP interfering in my article creation and evolution. We don't need two or three pages with tags asking for additional citations. Read those long winded histories and other scarce references and stop jarring my elbow. Later such a split might be warranted, but even an asshole would probably know to ask ahead of time. // FrankB04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And coming back to the lead issue: per WP:LEAD, the introduction of an article needs to be a summary of the body. There's no way that a lead about a road can summarize a body about a community. They may be related, but they're separate topics and should be developed as separate articles. Imzadi 1979→04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Continental Divide of the Americas into Great Divide. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So to sum up, you lot with too much time on your hands are adding yet another hurdle to make this a hostile place to contribute. Lets see, you are claiming definitions of the lines on the attached image, linking to fuller topics on same are worthy of this pin headed lawyering pov? Fortunately, I studied in the school of WP:IAR, and this hair you are splitting is nonsensical in light of the fact NO ONE here can claim authorship nor copyrights, since we donate both. Please find something more useful to do with our time. I really find you and this bothering event to be outrageously silly. // FrankB19:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
As you've perhaps seen, the TFD has been closed as keep. As one of the "procedural keep" voters at the end, let me suggest that you start a new discussion at one of the Village Pumps about these templates' future. The "nominator didn't make any arguments" keep votes are crucial — of course you made arguments, and potentially solid arguments, but the whole rationale was so massively long that it was beyond the average TFD voter. If you take it to the WP:VP, where people are accustomed to long and detailed things like this, I suppose that people are more likely to engage your suggestions instead of misunderstanding and rejecting them out of hand. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go even further and say that I support deleting these templates, or at least declaring them as "kept for technical reasons, but not to be used". In terms of technology they are outdated, unmaintainable, and unusable with VisualEditor. There are better solutions.
However, they are still used on thousands of pages, and converting them to a different format is not trivial. They should be deleted only after being phased out properly.
Did you, by any chance, start a discussion about phasing them out elsewhere? I'll be happy to join it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm John from Idegon. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Hazleton, Pennsylvania that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. referring to another editor's edit as vandalism is not appropriate. Granted , the IP should have left an edit summary, but when a new addition you've made is reverted (and this will most likely not be the only time that happens), best practice is to start a discussion on the article talk page and try to form a consensus on what if any to include. Putting it back is the first step in edit warring, a practice that is highly discouraged and can lead to your editing privileges being suspended. See WP:BRD for the proper steps to follow. I have no horse in this race, just wanted to let you know not to call things vandalism that aren't. Vandalism is an edit made with the intent of damaging the encyclopedia. This is a content dispute and should be treated as such. If the IP (or someone else) doesn't reply in a week or so, feel free to reinstate your edit. Thanks.John from Idegon (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you can misconstrue a thoughtful edit about the history of the early 19th century as adverse. Please enlighten me since you seem to have appointed yourself as the PC police... since I've been editing this project since 2004, I suspect I can cite more WP guidelines than you. SO QUOTE exactly what in my 2,000 characters long edit you find offensive to anyone alive. BTW, I abhor reverting, having done a couple years as a mediator. So it's pretty clear to me the anom I reverted didn't have his shit together. Perhaps your young self? // FrankB22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary. Read what I took the time to write you please. As I said, I have no horse in this race, and you have no idea about my age. I liked your contribution in general and you have done some great work. However, BRD is how it works here, and as long as the foundation insists on allowing IP editors, we have to treat them as equals. NODEADLINE, etc....just give the newbie a chance to express himself. If he doesn't, no problem. If he does, then he can learn how to Wikipedia right. From your age comment, I'm gonna assume you are kinda long in the tooth as am I. We are gonna die someday and someone has to be left to carry on. Thanks.John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, you may have time to turn the other cheek and go through a dance with an anom, but since he left no talk, I have to respect myself and time. WP:BOLD applies as a two-ways-pointing atom blaster. And if you don't want misconceptions about your age, loose all the narcissistic User templates on your user page to those which are important. YOUR action in reverting me, speaks unwell about your evaluation of the situation from the outset. 2,000 character edits, with cites takes quite a chunk of time, unlike your piss-ant message without justifying your reversion. So learn the ropes, yourself--that you left THAT talk message on my page without checking my history SOOOO does not do good things with your credibility. Kapish? // FrankB23:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Replaceable fair use File:Maps.google.com Map of Pennsylvania series, ruler measuring tool-tracing crest of Blue Mountain Ridge New Jersey-to Maryland in South-central & Eastern Pennsylvania.png
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 10:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@Train2104: You have an interesting idea of an attack. Stating an opinion, isn't attacking, and I have no reason to respect someone deliberately executing an subterfuge. And you'll note, HIS answer apparently evaluated it as intended, perhaps he'll resume not alarming experienced users and resume using a username. Try reading again. That idiot was doing the harassing, if such a description applies. ANYONE deliberately hiding behind an IP with that much knowledge is NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT, and I see no reason to be polite to someone being deliberately furtive. This site works off trust, and they are deliberately betraying that, Drawing and quartering would be too good for them. So mind your own business, and learn that not everyone approves of the rote and rule of every single behavior. Anoms edits deservedly get a lot of patroller attention, and having them welcomed is something we should no longer do. FrankB19:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions
Hey Fabartus, I saw that you were frustrated about my editing from an IP address in part because you said it prevented you from contacting me with a direct question. So, yes, I only edit Wikipedia sporadically, and I don't use my account (which was 10+ years old) anymore (in part because when, in high school, I generated the account, I used my real name ... and working in a school didn't go too well with that). But -just a heads up - if you do want to contact me with a direct question, you can certainly do so via my "user" talk page! User talk:216.12.10.118.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed your comments and in particular [[1]] and [[2]] it's clear that prior warnings and comments that you needed to stop harassing and insulting other editors were not effective. You're disrupting Wikipedia by continuing to attack other users, you've been warned and blocked before. Given no sign that you understand the significance of the warnings or the importance of the policy not to do that, I'm lowering the boom. You're blocked indefinitely. It's not just an encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's an encyclopedia everyone edits together. You're attacking the "together" part persistently, and you have to go.
That does not mean permanently. Any administrator who you can reasonably convince that you're not going to abuse and harass again in the future can unblock you at any time. I think you'll have a seriously uphill climb to convince anyone but go ahead and appeal the block if you believe that you have a case and will behave in the future.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Interwikitmp-grp
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History by period 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron horse 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.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
