User talk:Ken Gallager

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Edit this box

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

I just wanted to stop by and offer personal thanks for your contribution to the Katherine Sleeper Walden article. I'm sure you agree that it is shocking she didn't already have a page and, while I can do my best to make it well, I am neither experienced nor from New Hampshire. Thus, you going in and fixing grammatical mistakes and details is extremely important and beneficial. More importantly (or maybe equally important) is the experience of a local and/or someone familiar with the area who can point out glaring mistakes such as my incorrect association between the Bowl and Tuckerman Ravine. I would have likely never realized the mistake and continued to have incorrect information on an article of importance.

I have found in my limited time that people are often being chastised for perceived mistakes commonly and thanked for contributions rarely, and you seem to be quite deserving of thanks. Dionysius Miller^talk 15:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for putting together such an informative article! I do a lot of hiking in the area, so it is wonderful to have a full portrait of one of the names that are up there. Ken Gallager (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new user. You have contacted me before on clumsy editing (sorry!). I was wondering if the article "Rivercrest" is worthy of creation. Rivercrest is an old, demolished, suburban neighborhood in my area next to kendal at Hanover and CRELL. It definitely existed, -you can still go and see the ruins today, but I've been having a hard time finding online sources. You can look at what I've done so far on my subpage, but I don't think it's worthy of creation

Please let me know wether I should keep writing or not. Thanks, PhotoEditor123 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for checking in! I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline to see if there's anything about Rivercrest that might be considered notable. On first thought, I'm guessing there isn't; generally individual neighborhoods in a town are not notable enough. However, does it have a history with notable elements to it? Are there famous people who lived there or developed it? Is it significant in the history of urban or suburban development in the state? Things like that. Keep up the good work! Ken Gallager (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish summer camps in New Hampshire has been nominated for splitting. 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. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw the CDP list and found, as of 2020, several of these had not been designated as CDPs by the U.S. Census Bureau. I checked the places lists of the 2020, 2010, and 2000 censuses. Also the 1990 map of Posey County doesn't show these either.

I found Parkers Settlement is a CDP as of 2020. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I appreciate your reaching out. I'm remembering now the issue. You are right, the only CDP in the county as of the 2020 census was Parkers Settlement. The other four CDPs (Blairsville, St. Wendel, Stewartsville, and Wadesville) have been created since then, as were a lot of CDPs around the state. You can see them in the current Census Gazetteer files and Census TIGER maps. The 2023 Gazetteer for Indiana is here. The TIGER maps are best viewed through TIGERweb. You can zoom into Posey County and turn on "Places and County Subdivisions" to see the CDPs. If you choose "Current" in the "Select Vintage" box in the upper left part of screen, you will see Blairsville, Parkers Settlement, St. Wendel, Stewartsville, and Wadesville CDPs. If you change the vintage to the 2020 census, the only CDP visible is Parkers Settlement. My opinion is that the new CDPs should be shown in the infoboxes, because the Census is already producing statistics for them, e.g. in the 2022 American Community Survey. Let me know what you think. Ken Gallager (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they were created in 2023, then I agree they should be added! I can cite the 2023 gazeteer and the 2020 list in the same citation, so people can see they are present in 2023 but not in 2020. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the content of this edit is accurate, but there is no reference and I can't verify any of these details. What is the source for this information? Alansohn (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS 7-1/2 minute topographic map series. I can put a ref in to the article. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ken. Thanks for your continued work on New Hampshire-related articles in Wikipedia. I recently started a List of New Hampshire General Courts, and wonder if you have an opinion about what to call each legislative term. Options include:

• Numbered terms eg
  • 167th New Hampshire General Court
• Inclusive dates eg
  • 2020-2022 New Hampshire General Court (organizational session held in December 2020)
• Briefer dates eg
  • 2021-2022 New Hampshire General Court (regular session starts in January 2021)

Consistent names for legislative terms helps future editors when they give titles to new Wikipedia articles (eg 102nd Illinois General Assembly). What would you advise? Thanks for your help. Cheers, -- M2545 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for asking! I would lean toward the third choice (2021-2022 etc.). It's the most naturally descriptive of the three. I assume you're asking multiple editors? I can understand the use of the first one, especially if that's the way a lot of states are doing it. Ken Gallager (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comment. Literary evidence exists for all three styles, but I agree that the third choice (2021-2022 etc.) is easiest to understand for most Wikipedia readers. -- M2545 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ken Gallager, I just want to appreciate your supervision and amendments to the article. Thank you very much. Nir007H (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting topic. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ken Gallager (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I'm missing something, but how does the source added in this edit show that Neshanic Station, New Jersey, crosses county lines? Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find a better way of linking it. The ref points to the home page of TIGERweb. You then have to zoom in to the location and turn on "Places and County Subdivisions" in the table of contents on the left. Data vintage should have defaulted to "current". Ken Gallager (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried TIGERweb and was able to zoom in one the area and see that the CDP is mostly in Branchburg and partially in Readington, but I couldn't figure out a way to get directly to that point on the map. After searching on the Census Bureau website, I was able find this file, which lists the details of all CDPs for 2020 and which I added as a source on the article for Neshanic Station, New Jersey. By searching the file for ") and" -- to be clear, by which I mean a right paren, a space and the word "and" -- I was able to find that Neshanic Station is one of 20 CDPs that cross municipal boundaries. I think that this might be exactly what we're looking for as a source. I will acknowledge that I was able to find this by searching using Google in Census.gov, but I can't find the page where these files are listed. I hope this helps.

That looks very useful - thanks for sharing! Ken Gallager (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have not "spoken" in a while. There is someone (@Z1720) who is saying "White Mountain art" should not be rated as a Good Article. I have poked around a bit, and it seems this person is questioning a number of Good Articles. Do you know anything about this person? Do you know if these is some way I can object? Thanks. JJ (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ, I have not encountered their edits before; it looks like they are a fairly new editor but not a novice one. Be open to the process, if one is started; I have seen such processes to usually be helpful and constructive. Do remember that no matter the article history, no one "owns" the article. Best wishes, Ken Gallager (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]