Hi, I just made a small edit to an article you modified about a year ago, where you included more current U.S. Census data on a county. I'm not sure you still do edits of that sort, but I'm wondering if I might ask you to use the past tense when describing population estimates, e.g. instead of "as of 2004, the population is 4,123", "as of 2004, the population was 4,123". "is" feels increasingly odd as one moves from the census date. Thanks. --Improv18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Louisville is sprouting its wings for 2007! We have a new Assessment Department and a much more refined project template. We have nearly 1,000 articles catalogued for our project. And we still have a lot of work to do. We have 500+ articles left to assess for quality, and all our articles, as always, need tender loving care. Please consider dropping by the project and seeing what you might be able to do to move Louisville-related articles forward. Cheers, and Happy New Year! Stevie is the man!Talk • Work01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.
That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.
We are gathering responses to the following questions on those projects' talk pages:
Do you have a view whether the WikiProject California tag should be removed from a large number of cities in Southern California?
Do you have a view whether city article for Southern California cities should have more than one WikiProject tag?
User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. —ScouterSig18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:
If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot12:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the sentence "A CDP may also cover the unincorporated part of a named community where the rest lies within an incorporated city." That sentence means that there may be a single community, of which part is incorporated and part isn't, and the part that isn't incorporated may be designated as a CDP. There's no contradiction here to the exclusion of CDPs from incorporated cities. AJD23:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
