User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2010

"Don't include user pages in encyclopedic categories"

Regarding User:TigerTails/Oculophilia. Just wanted to say oops, only just checked that page and saw your edit. I didn't expect userpage edits to actually get added to the mainpage categories. Sorry! –  TigerTails  talk  17:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most users don't expect this to happen. That's why I try to mark it as a minor edit since I don't believe that most editors do this on purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Vi Redd

You have a spelling mistake on your user page but that doesn't mean anything - `cause from one jack of all to another - I like it.Paradise coyote (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Regional Transmission Organization

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Regional Transmission Organization. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Transmission Organization. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

===Sorry, I understand.=== I just meant to be more neutral. RenagadeX (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Vegaswikian! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 35 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Sue Wagner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Henderson Fire Department deletion nomination

FYI, following up on what you pointed out at the AfD I left this comment at User talk:JB50000.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Desert Xpress

On Talk:Desert Xpress, you stated the article was written like an advert and maybe subject to deletion. I agree.  _{Guy M | Talk}  00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

gate categories

Per this[1] I notice you have not yet deleted the category page. Sorry if I'm too fast on this, just checking to make sure that it actually gets deleted after a speedy delete decision. Or does it have to stay in place for the bot? I'm kind of a newbie on CfD things. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stampfli Express

Hey, I saw that you'd objected to the proposed move of Stampfli Express to Stämpfli Express on Talk:Stampfli Express. I've added some more surces, most importantly showing that the spelling on the boat is in fact Stämpfli Express (as well as the company making it, on their English website, calling themselves Stämpfli), and was just checking whether you had seen this, and whether that is sufficient evidence to warrant the move? Qualalol (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Categorize Template:San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park?

Do you have an idea what template category this could be fall into? It's currently not categorized. Thanks. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Scandals with -gate suffix

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Scandals with -gate suffix. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Nilai University College

Hi Vegaswikian. I see you closed the move discussion without actually moving the page history from Nilai International University College to the current article. Could you please do this (Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves)? Theleftorium 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegiant Airlines headquarters

Hi! Is Sunrise, Nevada convenient to where you are? If so, would you like to photograph the Allegiant Airlines building? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• For WikiProject Las Vegas we could post a "Requested pictures" thread -- If the Aviation WikiProject doesn't have one, we could make a Requested pics section for that too. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Conversion v

Hi. Last August you deleted a page I created with the above title. Can you please elaborate on what the problem with the page was? 13:34, 9 August 2009 Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) deleted "Conversion v" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject) Anthony (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a shot in a week or two. Anthony (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth: closing of a controversial requested move

I was wondering if you could give more explanation in response to your closing of the requested page move of Genesis creation myth. This request came in response to a recent move from a long existing stable name. This is what it says here, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if the closer feels that no consensus has been reached, they may move the article back to the most recent stable name. In the event what the most recent stable name is is itself a matter of dispute, closers are expected to use their own judgment in determining the proper destination. If a discussion is ongoing or has not reached a reasonable conclusion, you may elect to re-list the discussion, though it is entirely optional and up to the closer." I hope you might be willing to give an answer to these two points:

* you chose not to move it back to the "most recent stable name." Why?

* you chose not to "elect to re-list the discussion." Why? Cheers, SAE (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vegas montage

Hi. Can you please speak to User talk:Ruhrfisch and select a composite of seven images preferably with the panorama one across the top and six underneath which you believe give a fair balance of the city. We also need a different one for the strip but need to take out the hotels which are not on them. The composite will look much better in the infobox if you can select appropriate images we can all agree on. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 11:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then, but it can be used for Las Vegas Strip then if I replace the two hotels with strip images. OK? Please let me know because we haven't got time to waste creating montages only to have them reverted. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at this composite on your left.Which two pics are not of the strip? If I replace these can this please be readded to the Las Vegas Strip article? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Identify the two non strip images and I'll replace them with File:LasVegasSign06212005.jpg and File:Las Vegas Strip (view North from Tropicana intersection).jpg. OK? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought both the MGM hotel, The Venetian and Caesars Palace were on the strip? The other editor said it contained some images not of the strip. Please tell me which they are. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

By the looks of it I gather that Golden Nugget Las Vegas and Fremont Casino are not on the strip. If I replace those two with the two proposed above can we please add the composite to the Las Vegas Strip article? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15#Category:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal

Why was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15#Category:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal closed as delete? Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangled discussion

Now that Disney itself has confirmed that Rapunzel is now Tangled, the move request is being conceded as not being necessary anymore. Would you be able to go in and close it out? Thanks for all your assistance here, by the way. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Help request

can you help me thank you. (Quayhands (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)).

Image deletion templates

Thanks for renaming Category:Image deletion templates to Category:File deletion templates. Now, I was wondering about Category:Image deletion template shortcuts. Can it just be renamed, or are there other steps that have to be taken first. Please advise, thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. I've done so now at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 22#Category:Image deletion template shortcuts. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Piero Polo and Antonio Fort

What was the point of deleting the articles I had started about Piero Polo and Antonio Fort? As I clearly indicated, the Italian version of wikipedia has articles about both of them and, as far as I know, nobody has tried to delete them: it:Piero Polo, it:Aurelio Fort. Monegasque (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear no interest to the Nevada Wikiproject re: Talk:Thomas Grace (California)

This bishop was a missionary priest first in the combined histories of California and the Nevada Territory. He helped to build or dedicate many churches in Nevada. --Morenooso (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot change

Just figured I should drop you a note to keep you up to date on the latest Cydebot update. See User talk:Cyde#CFD and soft redirects for the details on the change. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gali Kurdistan

You deleted Gali Kurdistan as A7. Usually television stations are considered notable, although this is a satellite channel rather than a terrestrial station. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

However, a couple of editors considered that this was not-notable. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that not all TV stations are considered notable. There has been much discussion on this in the past. In any case, the article really needs to establish notability. Once you have some solid references from reliable sources that meet WP:CORP, the article can be recreated. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Family Matrix

You deleted my article title Family Matrix. You can see that the last revision was very matter of fact and did not advertise the product or site. Can you please give me more details as to specifically what objections you had to the article.? Thanks Abraham the Hammer 00:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Abraham the Hammer 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mount Duval (Nunavut)

I appreciate your help in creating articles for geographic features. In the case of Mount Duval (Nunavut) I noticed that you translated the Index Mundi coordinates (66.15, -65.6333333) incorrectly into the {{Coord}} template. The format you used is intended for degree-minute-second coordinates, and there are only 60 minutes in a degree. I've corrected the article. If you have questions about how {{Coord}} is supposed to work, please see Template:Coord/doc or contact me on my talk page. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas Picture 2010

Please see my most recent post on the Las Vegas discussion page. I believe it will help us look into this further and resolve it. Thanks! 29 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tomás Hogan

Hello Vegaswikian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tomás Hogan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being a Mayor is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  18:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

PROD declination for Tomás Hogan

Hello, I just declined this PROD. --Morenooso (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Itaipu Dam

It seems you misinterpreted the consensus. Consensus was to move it to Itaipu Dam. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields - North America

What do you suggest ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Grace (California)

Hi! I notice that User:Morenooso had added the Nevada WikiProject tag to Thomas Grace (California), and you had removed it. He seemed to think it was a personal attack against him or something, based on what he said in this section

He seemed to honestly believe that the article was in the scope, while you believe it isn't. Why would the article not be in the scope of the WikiProject.

I also get the feeling he is very frustrated with a lot of things, based on what he posts on his talk page, and I think it's affecting how he is relating to other editors. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you both have it wrong. I saw the change in status of a Speedy Delete declination in the Recent Change page. The PROD was a natural declination too. --Morenooso (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And, as additional if you had read all the things I did concerning how Thomas Grace was pioneer to both CA and NV, it seemed a natural fit. I did not see it as a personal attack - far from it. I saw it as being more amazement on your lacking of trying to research why it had been added. But then, seeing the comments on your talkpage gave me a great indication why. --Morenooso (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegaswikian posted a response on my talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Moorenoso posted a response on my talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

HS2000 move

Hey, thanks much for moving it. I'm new to the Wikipedia scene, and I wasn't looking forward to having to figure that out. Faceless Enemy (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Your great work with categories, dablinks, moves, and many other areas has been recognized and appreciated. :) œ™ 09:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

query

Hi. I'm perplexed by your deletion of the category Muslim Students' Association. There were only two delete votes, and 100% of the rationale given by them was not the case at the time of the close. Would you please revisit your close? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've continued out discussion on my talk page, below your comment, so as not to jump back and forth between pages. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please review the article 'Vietnam Airlines'?

G'day mate, I have been editing the article Vietnam Airlines for a while, do you mind just pop into the article for a moment, give it a brief read, and leave some comments on the page Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnam Airlines/archive1. Please don't change anything at the moment because a major edit is coming up. Any effort is greatly thanked, no matter how small, cheers! Sp33dyphil 06:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces (Flight Strip)

In the other discussion, I was under the belief that parenteses were acceptable. Indeed, one of the suggestions was to put parentheses in the names.. ... Hokayyyyy ... I'll rename them AGAIN.. however this seems quite trivial and nitpicking.... Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

From the other discussion .. note the parentheses... "....Propose renaming Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields - North America to Category:Defunct World War II USAAF Fields (North America Nominator's rationale: Rename. To use proper disambiguation. Note, that if this is approved we will need a mass nomination to cleanup a large number of like disambiguated categories created by one user. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)...." Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"...I'm not convinced that this category is even needed. I can see reasons to delete as well as for keeping...." Then indulge yourself as you feel is necessary.... Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin Lewis page move

The move of Martin Lewis to Martin Lewis (humorist) is incorrect as it is not an accurate description of the individual, who is a recognized polymath. In your move of the page you cited WP:RM discussion, however I am unable to find any such discussion which might indicate why previously-established consensus should be overturned. Could you please provide me with a link to said discussion? Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your move of Freezing (manhwa) to Freezing (comics)

If it is a a non-Japanese comic, than the article should not call it a manga. If it is a manga, than it should be renamed to Freezing (manga) instead to fall in line with the naming schemes of other mangas. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hi Vegaswikian! What do you mean by "drop category only used for subcategories"? Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me more.

Would you please elaborate on your reason for this edit: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Lady_Gaga&diff=next&oldid=356104041 ? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the essay and the look of the article using that non standard heading bothers me. This is really a style issue and I don't recall seeing this in the MoS. So yea, someone can write an essay, but it means almost nothing. Even the essay admits to the fact that others will not agree as I recall. WP:FOOTERS lists the last appendice as 'External links' and the only material that follows as 'optional footers'. In looking at the last three footers, it is clear that the last three never use headings. So a reasonable assumption would be that the first two don't either. If they did use headings, they would have been move into 'appendices'. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your concerns. With the regard to the "non-standard" issue, please consider the first and last item in this section. With regard to the "not an appendix" issue, please consider the last two items in this section. The question, I respectfully suggest, is whether the heading is useful to readers. Are you of the opinion that it is not? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Generic answers are nice. But they really don't counter my comments. Bottom line is that everything will help some reader. But in the end, a uniform style is needed for an encyclopedia and significant style changes really need to get consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for this discussion. As it turns out, the suggestion to seek pre-implementation consensus has been made before. Here is the story. If pre-approval is required then it really is a "Catch-22" problem. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that pointer. I wonder if we had a collapsible succession box if that would not be the best of all solutions? If both of these used the same method to determine the existence of other boxes and collapsed both, in most cases we would be left with the nice one line expandable boxs. That may be a more ascetic solution that would probably encounter little opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that playing hide and seek is the wrong way to go - why make folks work to get information? But it is not something I care enough about to cause me to go around changing boxes from "hide" to "show." So if you want to promote that approach you won't find me in the active opposition. I'll just put on a "Related information" heading so folks can easily find the collapsed box. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Epon categories

I am pleased to see that you have removed all the incorrect parent cats from Category:Jack the Ripper. I make attempts to perform this kind of edit myself from time to time but usually get reverted. (Eg I am pretty sure that Category:John Lennon, which contains a host of non-people, is not a subcat of Category:The Beatles members.) Occuli (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters

Could you quick move Goldman Sachs New World Headquarters back to 200 West Street and move protect the article. Third time in a month a move has taken place and you seems best to handle the issue given you closed the last one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Independence Day

In case you aren't watching the page: [2] --Cybercobra (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the discsussion, the rationale for moving it is more of the "meta-reason" that primary topics arguably don't/shouldn't apply to subtopics (i.e. "(film)" and analogous qualifiers); I think the supporters (including myself) freely concede that the more recent film is more popular / widely mentioned. But at any rate, I dropped the note here out of respect for process rather than to request an appeal or anything like that (Bovine really should have contacted you rather than just unilaterally reverting). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

the CFD discussion

Hello - thought you'd want to be aware that there may (I'll stress, "may") be a COI with the Orlando category discussions, based on previous editing situations on this very topic over the past few years. User_talk:McDoobAU93#I_smell_a_duck... Here is a related discussion going on about this. Maybe not COI, but you know what I mean. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it all points back to Category talk:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida from 2008. Fun, fun. SpikeJones (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I thought this looked familiar. I see a lot of work there. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

O-Train

Thank you for properly moving "O-Train". So many times a move is done without the cleanup of related templates etc. I went to do all that stuff, and found my task was redundant. How pleasant! I will look at Categories sometime in the future. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FIFA

Hi, I reverted your page move as I don't feel that, given the discussion, there is a consensus to do so. Those in favour of moving were very limited in their arguments and did not counter those that I put forward. I contend that there is, at best, a state of no consensus, and that the same can be said of the category discussion. Could you re-open the archived discussion if you wish to give it more time? Thanks, Miremare 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what "independent opinion" has to do with it? It was a revert of what I see as a controversial move, for the reasons I stated. Whether I was involved in the discussion or not is irrelevant. I'd like to request that you please move the page back, pending further discussion. Thanks, Miremare 02:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent has everything to do with it. That's why involved editors should not close any discussion since their view may be tainted by their opinion. In this case, I believe that consensus was clear. Fell free to open another move discussion if you think it will succeed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't close the discussion, I reverted your move which I considered to be clearly lacking consensus. I find it puzzling that you point out an editor's "I like it" comment as a reason to discount it, yet claim a consensus based on only two (excluding the first editor who apparently misunderstood the question) "I don't like it" arguments, and one who said he didn't have a problem with the current title anyway. Surely you don't consider such !votes to have a similar weight to a real argument... Given that the article has been stable at (series) for a long time, that reasons were provided that the title was correct per the WP:VG naming conventions, is used by all video game series articles when there is no naming conflict, that there is no naming conflict in this case, and that very few people took part in the discussion using arguments that are ones to avoid, could you please explain why you consider there to be a consensus to move? Miremare 03:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if any of the above sounds rude, that's not the intention, so apologies if so. :) Miremare 03:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. The disambiguation guideline allows for the use of words or phrases. The phrase 'video game series' is used over 4,000 times in wikipedia, including many occurrences for disambiguation. I remain unconvinced that my closing was incorrect since there was a consensus as I read that discussion. The nomination lays out a clear reason which is not really defeated by the opposition in the discussion. The other support is that the current form is to ambiguous. So between those who think it is a good idea and those who voiced that the current title is ambiguous, they support the nomination. While there many be a guideline for video game series, there are sufficient exceptions for exactly the form proposed here. As I said above, fell free to open another move discussion if you think it will succeed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm amazed to see you thought it was appropriate for you to close the category rename discussion too, especially given the importance you claim to think independence has in these things... unbelievable. Miremare 19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

century categories

I did take care of deleting about 500 articles from these categories, but then someone else joined in and finished the removal. You probably want to check all the categories as they exist now. Hmains (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor who did the rest is User:Koavf Hmains (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem It's just AWB+time+patience. Thanks for the thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Casinos

Revel Entertainment Group and Bally's Atlantic City are also using Oceanfront. You'd have to remove all three of them if you'd wish to revert my change to Tropicana Casino and Resort Atlantic City again. j.reed (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you edited the articles, but if you read the policy you cited, it actually agrees with me. If precedent is set that "for style and phraseology" to be used in the infobox, it should continue to be used. I was unable to find Wiki policy or article that defines what a "Casino Type" is. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists seems to be based on creation of articles, such as an article on each individual Macy's store isn't for Wikipedia just because the Herald's Square location has one. You don't need to justify your changes to me, I was just asking that you be consistent with "Oceanfront" casinos. j.reed (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The information was in {{Infobox Casino}} but got dropped in a rewrite of the documentation. I have returned this to the documentation. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Straw poll regarding assessing as stub based on pagesize of article

You had previously commented on this discussion; if possible, please weigh-in at the above straw poll. –xeno^talk 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Caesar's Challenge

I think you accidentally deleted a section when you did the disambiguation for Las Vegas. No worries, I corrected it for you and made sure what you intended to do got in there. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing auto-categorization at Template:Infobox law enforcement agency

Looks like this should be done, how would you go about it? Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

Make a request on the template talk page. My request seems to have died. As I recall, the code that adds these is in an included file and not trivial. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ryan Johnson

Hello, I see that you closed the discussion as no consensus for the move. Therefore, the page needs to be moved back to its original name from which it was moved without consensus. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I was taking the high road by starting the discussion. The page was moved without consensus and every time I moved it back the other editor claimed he was right and kept moving it. Therefore "where it is" is what it was since there was no consensus for the move in the first place. That is what was established. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Relisting RtM Middleton, Buckinghamshire -> Middleton, Milton Keynes

I see you relisted this RtM. Thank you, though I don't understand how it became unlisted. Was there a reason for this? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. Thank you, I understand. However, I suspect that the noise has served to obscure the signal.

As things stand, the request is fully in accordance with WP:UKPLACE and is exactly equivalent to the RtM (and decision) at Talk:Shirley, Southampton#Move districts of Southampton.

There have been four objections:

• the first of these questions whether Middleton is indeed a district or suburb. This is a fair challenge, given the terms of WP:UKPLACE. I believe that I have shown that it is but in fact and in law, using reliable external citations. Nevertheless, I shall add a good map from Openstreetmap that makes this very clear.

• the second and third do so on the basis of a version of WP:UKPLACE that is a year old and the second objector acknowledges this. I have given a link to the discussion that led to that policy change.

• the fourth gives no reason for objecting (WP:IDONTLIKEIT?) but goes on to make a new suggestion. Unfortunately, he confused Middleton (district) with Middleton (ward): two different things though the former includes the latter plus other wards.

None of the objectors have come back to argue with the clarifications and corrections that I have given. I think it reasonable to assume that they accept them.

I realise that your talk page is not really the place for this discussion: if you can suggest a better place for it, I would appreciate it. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I had come to the same conclusion. Actually being British seems to be more of a hindrance than a help and a US reader who doesn't read all towns and cities in terms of radial geometry is at an advantage! See Milton Keynes#Grid squares for discussion: Middleton (district) is a grid square. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington

Agree with your move for the most part. Is there another discussion for moving DC to the primary topic? My reading of consensus is much different than your on that and it will be more contentious.Cptnono (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I need more coffee (Washington er...statian) since I misread your closing comment then. I also agree that it is perfectly fine as is now.Cptnono (talk)

I am puzzled with the recent move you made to Washington. --White Trillium (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildstorm Comics

When you listed the Wildstorm Comics categories for renaming, I noticed that Category:Wildstorm Comics superhero teams was not included in the list. I just want to check whether this omission was deliberate based on the discussion or accidental. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oddly capitalised page

Perhaps you can help me. I tried to list lecca for a move to Lecca as per MOS:CAPS, but I can't, since technically the article already exists there due to the wiki's coding (the same goes for mihimaru GT) --Prosperosity (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! --Prosperosity (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Target (retail store)

You are invited to join the discussion here. patsw (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_7#Port_settlements

It seems that by proposing a poor (re)name, I have send the disscussion down a rabit hole, and people are not thinking about whatelse to rename it to instead, as you have.

I am thinking I should just withdraw the whole nomination and make a whole new proposal to rename to Category:Port cities. What do you think?

Yea, it does seem to have turned on you. This is probably one of those cases that no one thought about in the extended discussion and could well wind up being an exception to the rule. Clearly it would be a benefit to have these coalesce to one form for the name. Withdrawing may make since since I suspect the nomination is doomed by the problem raised. However doing that would eliminate the chance for any discussion of a better name. I wonder if trying a new nomination to settlement for some of the other names might be an acceptable approach. Get everything in one form and then see if there is a better name for the lot. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Want do you mean by "nomination to settlement for some of the other names"? Nominate as "rename to Category:Port settlements in Foo" or "rename to Category:TBA" ? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 05:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Port cities in Burma to Category:Port settlements in Burma as an example. The other option here might be to create Category:Port settlements in Burma as a parent for Category:Port cities in Burma, unless we are saying that port settlements only exist there for cities. That is just an example since if you look, you will see that this tree is rather sparse. Makes me wonder from looking around in the tree that a good cleanup might also help. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Former Native American settlements in the United States

I have nominated Category:Former Native American settlements in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to a different name. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re The Green Hornet (requested move)

I noted the change you made to the "requested moves" page, and I'm sorry if I've caused you extra work. This is my first experience in this area, and I thought I was doing the right thing by following the instruction I found on the page: "If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the Contested requests section below." Based on what I see on Talk:The Green Hornet, I very much doubt that consensus will be achieved for the move. May I ask for your comments on what happens next, and what the correct procedure would be? Thanks in advance for your trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry that I'm not sure I understand even now so, since I'm fairly sure I would bugger it up, I won't tamper with the wording; likely it's obvious to everyone but me. (And please don't trouble yourself to explain, I've bothered you enough already.) I'm obliged for the explanation of the process and will wait to see what happens. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Private equity firms

I know you are the category guru but your uncategorizing private equity firm categories is confusing to me. Why wouldn't you want to include a category about a privat equity firm as a sub category of private equity firms?|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria (Australian state)

How do I go about getting your move of this article reversed? The "consensus" to move appears to be based on a sample of 2. The additional disambiguator is unnecessary and only makes finding the article harder not easier. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will note that some editors don't spend all our time checking WP:RM religiously and have many, many articles on our watchlists - some discussions of potential interest will sneak through. Once again, a note at WP:AWNB would have seen a contribution of views from a wider group of editors. A wiser administrator would have perhaps sought further comment to establish a genuine consensus before moving such a key article. Claiming consensus from a sample of two is an interesting definition of "consensus" ...

As for being unhappy whatever you did, where is the evidence that anyone was unhappy with the Victoria (Australia) name? There was a claim that a guideline dictated a name change - what guideline would that be - WP:STATENAME? It seems to me that the nominating editor has invented a guideline and no one, not even the closing administrator, has called him or her on it. WP:RM request to follow shortly. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus, the IP's support should be ignored as who knows who they are and ApprenticeFan's nomination and the IP's "Support sounds good" is not a consensus.

Clearly it should be speedy renamed back to Victoria (Australia) per Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move. Bidgee (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Populated places

There's a bot already set for this at User:Carlaude/Rulers. I don't think you need to add these nominations by hand.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They had trouble with such a long page so I split them between User:Carlaude/Rulers, User:Carlaude/Rulers2, and User:Carlaude/Rulers3. All are listed in today's CfD except the "port settlement" ones. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you need to remove the ones that are already listed in discussions for earlier days and some that have already been moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed all I cound find. Feel free to remove anymore you find, or point them out to me on my talk. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ave Regina Coelorum

Hi, Ave Regina Coelorum moved suddenly after you closed the discussion on Regina Coeli. Please see: Talk:Regina_Coeli#Ave_Regina_Coelorum:_sudden_move for that move by Capmo was totally without consensus, and needs discussion. Could you please revert that move until the move is discussed in its own right? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it will get discussed now. History2007 (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

History2007 is lying, I did the page move before the discussion was closed. --capmo 06:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The page should not have been moved without a discussion. It is clear that this is not uncontroversial as a move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! I just returned the page to its original title (against my will, as you must have seen if you read the discussion). There's nothing to discuss about this move. --capmo 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the page was moved from Ave Regina Coelorum to Ave Regina Caelorum on February 25, 2007. But clearly the move is contentious. So discuss it on the talk page and let consensus decide where it belongs. Yes, it was brought up in the other move discussion, but I don't see that discussion as being grounds for consensus for the move you did. If you are right, then there will be no problem getting a consensus. It will delay the move by a week. This is not something that needs to be corrected right now. I did notice that there is also a contested deletion of the redirect page. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

I've made some changes to Cydebot that should address the deletion summary issue (specifically, the lack of a correct link to the per-day discussion page in some instances). Please keep your eyes peeled for any remaining issues. More information is here. --Cyde Weys 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Iceland

This was an obviously wrong decision. IMO even "no consensus" would have been a mistake given the respective quality of the arguments, but "keep" is simply not defensible. Category inclusions do not prove logical implications. Most instances of so-called "eco-terrorism" (a political fighting term) are not terrorism at all, although a tiny minority are. Please consider actually reading the arguments properly or asking another admin to do so while I am trying to find out whether deletion review applies to categories, or whatever is the applicable process in case you are unwilling to fix your mistake or unable to understand it.

There is no chance that this category, which has been created with the express purpose of misrepresenting a single event, will be returned to the article. The deletion discussion for the redirect from Terrorism in Iceland to the same article ended in delete. The discussion at WP:BLP/N currently has a (somewhat fragile, but clear) consensus that the category is not applicable. My putting this to CfD was a purely procedural move because it was clear that the creator of the category would oppose a speedy deletion of the category as empty because he is trying to abuse it. Hans Adler 21:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should not have been closed as keep. I have changed the closed to no consensus. I think you really need to concentrate on the article itself since terrorism is used there to an extent that allow the article to be included in the terrorism tree. If the act was in fact not terrorism, then the article needs to be rewritten to show that it was not terrorism. Terrorist in general will argue that their acts were not terrorism, so that in and of itself does not decide. It is what is available from outside sources. If you succeed in getting the article rewritten to show that the act was not consider terrorism, then you may well be justified in removing Category:Eco-terrorism, Category:1986 in law and Category:Terrorism in Iceland from the article and then there would be no reason to keep the category. But this goes back to the article and what it says. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing to "no consensus". Category:Eco-terrorism does apply to the event because most definitions of "eco-terrorism" are, counter-intuitively and for transparent political reasons, much broader than ecologically motivated terrorism. Under many definitions, if you tear a piece of scrap paper that belongs to someone else, and you do it for ecological motives, that's eco-terrorism. Inclusion in this category does not in any way imply that something is terrorism. I have no idea what Category:1986 in law is doing on the article, but neither can I see how it would imply that something is terrorism. Is the Goldwater–Nichols Act an act of terrorism?

The article does not in any way imply that this was terrorism. I don't know what you have read. Some interested parties (Norway = target of the crime, Greenpeace = competition of the perpetrators, and parts of the Canadian press that have reason to hate the perpetrators) have "called" it terrorism, but only superficially. They very obviously didn't mean it, and nobody seems to have taken it seriously. This pure name-calling is currently getting a bit too much weight in the article and I am trying to get this fixed, but the factual information in the article is correct.

"Terrorists in general will argue that their acts were not terrorism". You are obviously referring to Coronado's response that is quoted in the article. That shouldn't be there in the first place and is part of the undue weight problem, creating the illusion that someone might have taken the name-calling at face value.

What seems to be true is that Coronado went on a path towards terrorism, which probably started with this. He went as far as arson, and I don't want to judge whether it was actual terrorism. But here we are talking about a previous event which also involved another, named, person. Hans Adler 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, my statement about terrorists arguing that they are not terrorists is a general statement, not about the comments of one individual in one article. As I said, your issues are with the article. As the article stands, inclusion in this category is logical. Rewrite the article to show that this is not a terrorist incident and then the three categories above may no longer be supported by the article's content and could be dropped. But as the article stood when I looked at it, they are justified by the article's content as well as the content of the article about the group behind the incident. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured this would happen—even if the matter is taken to a formal discussion and it goes somewhat against what one user thinks is right, why does that user seem to assume a veto power over how the category is used? Vegaswikian, if you have time, maybe you should visit the discussion at BLP/N and decide if there is a consensus to remove the category or not, and then make an administrative decision on the matter. (Not that I think that will necessarily be respected, but we can hope. I'll respect whatever you decide.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right to the extent that this will not be respected. Here are some definitions of terrorism for your convenience (all italics are mine):

• Wikipedia: Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
• Wiktionary:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

There are also other, dramatically wider technical definitions that make a travesty of the term and have nothing to do with the plain meaning of the word. But it's not at all NPOV to use them. Under the above definitions and the majority of definitions discussed in Definition of terrorism destructive acts against property that are not intended to, and have no chance to, cause fear need not even apply. These wider definitions are generally examples of political manipulation, or are designed for such. It's totally inappropriate to try to push such definitions on Wikipedia. Hans Adler 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No one's trying to "push" anything, buddy-boy, I'm just trying to involve a neutral third party to help resolve an issue. Given your unshakeable confidence in your own correctness, I'm not really expecting you to make an attempt to resolve the issue by this means, but imagine if you did! That would be nice. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, I did look at the BLP and left that convinced that no consensus is a correct decision. The issues as I have said go back to the article and the sources there need to determine what the act was and based on the that apply the logical categories. Category contents depend on the article and therefore its sources. The issues are with the article, its wording and the sources. So again I go back to the statement that if the article changes, then the need for the category can chnage. Seeing how involved this is getting, this is looking like forum shopping. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So, is your advice that we put the article in the category in the meantime, pending further pursuit of these issues? Or that we leave it out? (And sorry for having this out on your talk page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, leave it in the contested categories and argue the issues on the article's talk page. If and when wording changes get consensus there that this is not terrorism, then they can be removed. Otherwise, it is probably edit warring. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And what does one do if User:Hans Adler just flat out refuses to follow this course? He has now reverted three times, claiming immunity from the 3RR via WP:GRAPEVINE: [3], [4], [5] (and perhaps ironically, has given me an edit war warning). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We are on ANI now

See WP:ANI#I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism.... Hans Adler 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hotels

Hi. Just anote I've also started Category:Hotels by year of disestablishment. If any Vegas hotels were former then please create a cat for the year it was disestablished. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Slang CfD

Thanks for support in the CfD. You seem to see where I was coming from with my reasoning. Unfortunately, other people didn't—nor did they even respond to our claims very well—and all the categories got kept. Any idea how to get some more people to support our position so that we can get rid of these NPOV/unverifiable categories? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardblock on 192.251.125.85

Is there a reason you chose to hardblock the Hilton gateway at 192.251.125.85 (talk · contribs)? This is currently affecting User:G2g886 and likely quite a few others. Do you mind if I switch it to a long term soft block, or do you feel there is a sock nest here? Kuru (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Expressway

Hi friend, I saw u reverted the quality rating edits. Saying its not stub, if u think its not stub then what should be rating start? if yes please add to article. I have no problem if its has higher rating or lower. Thanks KuwarOnline (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysian Furniture Industry Council

Did you actually look for sources for the article before commenting on this AFD? Many are available, demonstrating that this is in fact a notable organisation - I posted five that took about ten seconds to find in a quick Google search. Robofish (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you

Why did you close this RfM saying there was "no consensus" ? have you read all the comments? Is consensus based on votes or what people say? [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RM

I suppose you could be interested in Talk:Faust_Vrančić#Requested_move, cause you were the one who relist it. Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

can you take a look at this?

You say there were no consensus to change the name of the article. There has been a separate discussion about a template:

[7][8] [9][10] [11] [12]clearly show many people discussing and showing that the occupied territories should be in the template.

It has been reverted by a user claiming that it goes against consensus at an article RfC: [13] But that rfc was at another page and about an article not this template right? So looking at the discussion at the template there is no consensus for removal of West bank and Golan from the template right? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking about what we should do now, I'm asking about what has happened and what was agreed during the RfC at the article and how that affects the template. There was no consensus for the change to move the article to: "in Israel and the occupied territories" right?, that was how you closed it as[14] Then at a template, not the article, Breein removed Golan and West Bank from the template based on his claim that "it goes against the consensus of the recent RfC" [15], but there is no consensus at that RfC for any move at the article or at the template and the consensus at the template talkpage is that West bank and Golan should be in the template, so he has no right to remove them from the template based on the no consensus RfC at another article, right? The previous consensus at the template talkpage to have WB and Golan in the template still stands, right? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatty

Thanks for nominating Beatty, Nevada. I've been thinking about nominating it, but it has been somewhat unstable, and I've been busy with other things. When a reviewer begins to comment, I'd be glad to help if you like. I own a copy of the McCracken book, which was my main source for the History section, and I should be able to answer questions about sources. I'm also open to any suggestions about how to improve the article. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Foreign policy and strategy think tanks in the United States

• I do not understand this diff. Could you explain? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tudor Architecture

Thanks for fixing my mess! Stronach (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dominique de Ménil

Please look again at Dominique de Ménil. You closed a discussion about renaming this aricle without the accent; and indeed, the talk page was renamed. However, the article itself is unchanged. This appears to be an oversight.

Will you remedy this trivial problem. On step more seems to be needed?--Tenmei (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cities and towns

Just so you know: I'm asking the people in the Consensus? section of the "Populated places" discussion about a key point that has created some division in this giant nomination. When you were reaching this consensus, did you think "Cities and towns" categories (not "Cities, towns, and villages") should have been part of the changes? If you have an opinion on this, please comment at the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

College categories

Vegas, please stop with the recatting on college/university categories. Yes, some can be moved, but to use MTSU as an example, it is perfectly logical to leave "Category:Murfreesboro, Tennessee" and "Category:Universities and colleges in Tennessee" present. I mean, that's the whole point of the category system...to make it easier to find specific articles and types of articles from pretty much any point in the system. Has this change been discussed anywhere, or are you simply being bold? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Given our current structure, I'd consider that a bit of a logical fallacy. Category:Radio personalities from Nashville, Tennessee has just as much to do with Category:State capitals in the United States as Category:Middle Tennessee State University faculty has to do with Category:Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. I don't think you'd find any support for changing the former, and it employs the exact same downstream logic as the latter. If you want to change how things are categorised, that's fine, but bring it about through top-down policy changes, rather than hitting just a select types. I suggest not continuing without some wider discussion. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about eponymous categories, and I think it makes the most sense to employ the categorisation system within the eponymous category, so everything maintains a more unified structure. As it is, things are here and there and all over the place, and if most/all non-meta categories were moved into the article, it would make the categorisation system completely pointless. Why do that? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

Hi, I have begun reviewing your GA nomination and have left some comments for you to address at Talk:Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow so I didn't expect the drama that has unfolded in relation to Xtzou. In any case, I was able to look over the article briefly and from that look my best advice is to start shrinking the lead. It seems a bit long and detailed, particularly in the recent history. All it needs to do is summarize the entire article and should only be about 3 paragraphs long or so and the larger (and sourced) details can be in the main body. Also watch out for very small or single-sentence paragraphs/sections. I noticed a single-sentence paragraph in the Background section and the Stability section is very small; it seems to be more of a "Location" section and doesn't need a subheading underneath it since that's all it is. I will try to get more specific suggestions soon. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Hartford

I was going to create the list of tallest buildings in Hartford, when I saw that it had been deleted three years ago by you. I don't understand the reason for deletion; can you clarify why? Zonafan39 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread

Could you take a look at this ANI thread. It doesn't concern you (have anything to do with you), but I need an admin to take a look as I need to know what to do and you are the only one up at the moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ANI thread is up and I added a mention to Risker's page as well, but he hasn't edited in over 3 hours so is probably offline. Thanks for responding though. Hope this doesn't effect our GAs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This might help you in your GAN. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Nevada articles

I'd like to say "yes", but I'm spread too thin as it is. I spend about half my Wikipedia time doing PR reviews and the other half on a wide variety of projects. The three articles you've mentioned all sound interesting, but I haven't contributed to any of them, and getting up to speed would be fairly time-consuming. I'll have to pass for now. I wish you and the Nevada group the best. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How could you do such things?

You have just moved “Linear regression model” to “Linear regression”, without there being a consensus for such change. Without there being any explicitly stated reasons for such change. You said “Relisted to allow the last comment a chance to see if that is a consensus”, however the last comment (which didn't state support or opposition directly) was clearly against the proposed move. I can do a sentence-by-sentence analysis:

“I thought Wikipedia tried to use the most common naming for articles, so my feeling is that the article should be Linear regression, not Linear regression model. Linear regression is hands down the term used in the non-mathematical community.” This states that the phrase “Linear regression” is a phrase used most often in practice. It doesn't say yet what is it that this phrase is used most often for. “To appease the statisticians, the hatnote idea sounds appropriate, with the hatnote either redirecting to a specific page, or a disambig page for the general notion of linear regression.” This already acknowledges the fact that there is a “general notion of linear regression”. It just so happens that this article is exactly about this “general notion”. The user 70.250.178.31 doesn't say what this “general notion” page should be named in his opinion, only he wants this page to be something totally else: “As a general regression model framework would be inaccessible and unnecessary for 99% of users, I sincerely hope that the page accessible by default is a special case model, with only one independent variable, and least squares error estimation.” So basically he wants that the title “Linear regression” was assigned to the simple linear regression article, or at least to the ordinary least squares article. Which is exactly why we had the structure which we had: “linear regression” being a disambiguation page, pointing towards the OLS article and towards a more general linear regression model framework.

I sincerely hope you would revert the move, or at least explain the reason why you felt such move was appropriate. Otherwise I'll have to reopen the move request.  // stpasha »  22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe restore this category?

Earlier this month you deleted Category:Unreferenced BLPs from May 2007 as an empty category; however, there are still a dozen live articles in it. Maybe they got flagged as unreferenced BLPs recently, and moved into the category after it had been deleted? Anyhow, you might want to consider whether to restore it. Thanks for your housekeeping. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Concerning what we talked about before about that the article weren't changed because there was "no consensus" as you had closed it as, and how that affected the template.

I told Breein on his talkpage what you had said about the template: [16]

After this he has now twice reverted without getting any new consensus for the change. [17][18]

He claims at the talkpage that he is: "restoring the longstanding consensus."

If you look at the talkpage its clear what the consensus is, anyone can clearly see from the discussions that the editors in the end agreed to have the occupied territories or their names in the template. Huldra,[19] Jayjg[20] ArnoldPettybone[21] Ynhockey[22] and Me. Then there was one now banned sockpuppeter Fipplet who posted against.

I posted at his talkpage what you said and he has not gotten any new consensus for the change. And now this is the "longstanding consensus" breein says he is reverting to.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I have no problem with splitting the list into two sections. "State of Israel and the Occupied territories?" sounds good and correct, but the fact that Breein don't accept any mention of the occupied territories or their names in the lead, I don't think he will accept it in the rest of the template. The issue is that he is continuing to change the lead without consensus for it. That is disruptive. If I would have done that at the National parks of Israel article I would most likely get banned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only the politics of the area, but every country on earth except Israel excepts those terms. Breein has already said that he is not gonna follow the consensus and change it anyway as he has done. Will you not do or say anything to him about this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Those I know of in the template are: Golan Heights: Kursi, Golan Heights, Nimrod Fortress, Westbank: Bayt 'Itab, Qumran. In the article there are many more areas in the occupied territories that are not in the template, you can see them in the "region" section: [23] Also if you could change the article back to "of" as it was changed to "in" without any agreement for the change: [24] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what about the article? An editor moved it from "of" to "in" without consensus for the change. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Coyote Springs, Nevada

The debate at Coyote Springs, Nevada article has recently heated up. Users are now spamming the talk page, an reverting each others edits. It is also flooding my watch list. As a side note, I have reviewers now so I can help out if the issues goes to WP:ANI in the coming days. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. It should not be protected. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Anheuser-Busch brewery

Which building are you refering to here?. Anheuser-Busch is a company that operates "12 breweries in the United States and nearly 20 in other countries", so has 32 buildings around the world that could be termed as an Anheuser-Busch brewery. The main building, and the one that is listed as a National Historic Landmark is Anheuser-Busch_brewery#St._Louis_headquarters_and_brewery, which is in St Louis. It seems likely that somebody putting in a search for the "Anheuser-Busch brewery" might be looking specifically for the St Louis building, or at the least for information about the beer company that has its headquaters in St Louis. I can see that at times a brewery building in itself is of interest, such as the ones that are on the National Register of Historic Places. When that happens, a brewery company article can be placed in the appropriate brewery company cat and the appropriate National Register of Historic Places cat. I'm not clear on what advantage is gained by using the Breweries (buildings) cat, though would be quite happy to talk through some of the issues with you if you wish. SilkTork *^YES! 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to not want to have brewing related buildings listed in building and structure categories like every other building. I strongly believe that the listed building should have it's own article and not be a part of the company article. At least for the time being, the categories are on the redirect which helps some. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to help out here, though I am unclear what you have in mind. Do you want to have a category just for listed buildings that are or were breweries, or do you want to have a category for all buildings that were, are or contain a brewery? SilkTork *^YES! 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes every notable building should have an article. By extension, every notable brewery building should have an article and be in the correct building trees. Category:Breweries (buildings) in the United States should be a well populated category. It appears that someone has again emptied this out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am personally fond of and interested in old brewery buildings, and am a member of The Brewery History Society; I write articles on old breweries, and will go out of my way to visit old breweries and take photos of them (or what remains of them! most are turned into shopping centres or housing), so I would be keen to have some way to identify and categorise the more notable buildings. Unfortunately the majority of brewery companies do not have notable buildings, so I wonder if coming out of a general buildings super cat is the right route. The most notable brewery buildings usually belong to the older brewery companies, though often the notability is attached to the brewery company rather than the architectural features of the building - such as a famous person living in a certain house. The heritage listing process tends to identify quite well those buildings, brewery or otherwise, that are notable. Perhaps a sub cat could be created out of Category:Heritage registers, rather like Category:National Inventory Pubs? And the cat named so that it is clear what the category is about: Category:Listed brewery buildings perhaps? SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That works on the assumption that all breweries are listed, and they probably are not. In cases where the building is notable and there is something in the article on the company, then you can tag the redirect with the categories and then if the section on the building grows to where it should be split, you can do so. There should be no reason to avoid using the existing buildings and structures categories. Yes, many of these can be listed in categories for historical buildings, but they also need to be listed in city or state or country B&S categories and in B&S categories for they type of use. These are established category structures that are used for all buildings, except for breweries because every time these categories are added, they seem to vanish. What would be helpful would be to review the existing well accepted and used categories and start adding the brewery buildings into them. It would also be helpful it you could accept the fact that brewery is ambiguous in that it describes both companies and buildings. Use this link as one of many definitions out there if you need proof. Also to say that the Anheuser-Busch Brewery is about the company and not the building is pushing literary license a bit. That is how the building is listed on the NRHP. The article for the company uses a different name. I find it astonishing that the listed building(s) only has 2 paragraphs of information and that the see also for the section about the building does have a see also, not for the building but for See also: Alcohol laws of Missouri. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma Casinos

Vegaswikian, I have been working on the List of Casinos in Oklahoma and just noticed that it looks like you've undone all of the information I've added and changed the regions back to the incorrect designations. I was only about 1/3 of the way through adding the correct regions and links for more information about the individual casinos. I was also alphabetizing the casinos and adding ones that were missing. I saw a note about messed up column headings in a larger table, but I'm not aware of a larger table than what I saw on the page. I changed the word District to Region because that is the term we use for tourism areas in Oklahoma. If that one word needs to change back for some reason, that's no big deal. But can you please revert it back to all of the corrections and updates I had already made? I was planning on working on this more this afternoon, but can't go forward until those changes are back. Thanks for your help!Jkalkman (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of tagging in HASP article

First, my apologies for using {{Disputed}} when {{Disputed-section}} was more appropriate.

Second, my intent was to indicate that the specific statements were provably in error, not simply missing verification. Now that the move is completed, I plan to go back to the article and correct the relevant passages. If you have time, I'd appreciate guidance on the appropriate level of detail, under Talk:Houston Automatic Spooling Priority#Disputed claims

Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Move Tunnel rat to Tunnel rat (disambiguation)

Excuse me, can you move the page of Tunnel rat to Tunnel rat (disambiguation) please? 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes you can, because this Tunnel rat is a Tunnel rat (military) I suggest you to move it! 75.142.152.104 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: GAN

I never wroked on that GAN. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I will not workig on that GAN due to lack of time, but I could work on other GAN's when I return. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Thank you for protecting the Coyete Springs article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OutKast no move

I don't think we should count that last oppose vote in the potential OutKast name change, because it occured far after the 7 day voting period. JSelby (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I kind of think it was unfair that the vote was just left up for a long time with no comments, and then the day after someone decides to post something, the consensus is established. I also feel like perhaps my side (I of course am biased) presented a slightly better argument. I don't think I can officially challenege the ruling or anything, but I would like to keep the possibility of a name change open. JSelby (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Those Nopetro cats

Hey there, VW - Your industriousness leaves me feeling rather puny! What a mess -- far worse than I even imagined. I cannot believe the sheer volume of dubious categories he spewed out. But I'm starting to feel overwhelmed by the number of CFDs. It would be so much easier if we could just delete them all en masse, but of course we don't want to throw out the babies with the bathwater. So I would suggest slowing down a little, in order to ensure that each Category & CFD receives full consideration. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, VW - I was beginning to worry that the tidal wave of Nopetro cats would use up all the oxygen at CFD! (kind of like those oil plumes in the Gulf) - Cgingold (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Slums

Hi Vegaswikian,

thank you for creating the Category Lists of slums. I ask you to create categories on slums by country. Sarcelles (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

template Airport-dest-list

Hi, Can you please comment on Template talk:Airport-dest-list, regarding collapsible list. KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note: I am not the initiator of the DRV, I'm simply doing the notification part.) — ξ^xplicit 18:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: salt A. Traviss Corry

Thanks for userfying A. Traviss Corry. May I suggest you tweak things so the main-namespace A. Traviss Corry page is protected against recreation, so that Mr. Corry won't recreate it yet again.  :) Cheers, Shoepuppet (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans Jørgen Koch

Hi. I have a question concerning the category:International Renewable Energy Agency for the Hans Jørgen Koch article. Last year, Koch was the main candidate for the post of director general beside of Hélène Pelosse who was elected. By my understanding this could be sufficient for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Categorization

I wanted to get a reason why you were removing categories from images. Can you please explain?

From WP:CAT#Images:

"Category tags can be added to image pages too. Images are not included in the count of articles in the category, but are displayed in a separate section with a thumbnail and the name for each. A category can mix articles and images, or a separate image category can be created. An image category is typically a subcategory of the general category about the same subject, and a subcategory of the wider image category, Wikipedia images. To categorize a new image when uploading, simply add the category tag to the upload summary."

Except there is a robust category here on Wikipedia and not so on Commons. The images are used here where as many on commons are not used in Wikipedia. I am not suggesting we categorize every commons image but do not see a reason not to categorize the commons images that are already here. I am not sure I see why I wouldn't want to include images in a category that is comprehensive rather than exclude it. And looking through image categories many of the images in these cats are from commons already so I doubt this is a far reaching rule |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not gone through your editing activity but if you look at Category:Wikipedia images by subject it is not that there are some images from the commons, nearly every image is from the commons. That is why I am a little unsure where you are going with your changes. You will be litterally uncategorizing hundreds if not thousands of images. What is the point and shouldn't you have a discussion about what you are doing before you do it wholesale?|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

then I would suggest you leave the images I discussed alone as I disagree with your de-categorizing and think I have the weight of a common practice and the guidelines for image categorization on my side. I think it was fine the way it was and it is not a major area of focus for me but would prefer to leave it as is. Thanks|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I totally agree with Vegas' actions, and we even have a specific speedy deletion item for this situation: G8, which specifically takes into account description pages (which includes categories) for images that are on Commons. This is simple housekeeping, and for that matter, I'd suggest G6, housekeeping and routine cleanup, would also be reasonable. I see nothing wrong here. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Masdar City

Heh, which category wasn't appropriate? ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 02:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Without question, that is a very good thing to blame! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mono-Si

Hi, you removed the stub tag from the page Monocrystalline silicon. You don't think it is a stub, or there is some technical reason for this (I am relatively unexperienced in wiki things)? - --GianniG46 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Floating casino in Little River

Sorry, I didn't know. Now that I see the list I guess that is more appopriate. I wasn't aware there were so many. Still, I don't know the boat's name, which would be necessary for the other article. That particular article didn't give it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at my original intention, I may not have worded the addition correctly. But for that I'd need an additional source. This is probably one of several floating casinos that operate where there are restrictions on land. Taken as a group, they most certainly would be appropriate for the article as a category of casinos.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IFELTIT

Glad you enjoyed my sarcasm. Californians like me would have an edge when it comes to articles in this category. But this notability criterion is clearly international; why else would we have kept this article about a 2.7 earthquake in Ireland? Any earthquake felt by an administrator would be an automatic keep, of course.

I have certainly seen people argue that an event was notable or verified because WP:IWASTHERE. Good to know there's a name for it.--MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

LittleRedWriter

Greetings!

I am new here although I have written over 300 articles at wikiHow, some were featured, and I need your help. I was in the process of writing an article about Raymond E. Fowler [25], left under construction tag, and while I was doing research had the reference tags placed on the article by:

[26] Morenooso.

I sent a polite request asking the ref tags be removed with the explanation that I was in the process of writing the article and the references were now in place. User Morenoose refused to remove the tags. My question is: Can I remove these tags since the references are in place? Also, I will work on the article more tomorrow as it's late here.

Thanks in advance for your help,

LittleRedWriter (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)LittleRedWriter

How do you add the references and citations statement? I know how to do it at wikiHow.

Thanks!

LittleRedWriter (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)LittleRedWriter'

And thanks again! I'll take a look at the User's Guide and see if I can figure out how to wikifi it. I'm used to using the AP Style Guide, I am a retired reporter, so I am sure with help I'll get the other stuff worked out. I sure do appreciate your help as I am a newbie here.

Thanks again! LittleRedWriter (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)LittleRedWriter

Let me know what you think. I know the article is far from perfect, and I am learning to weave the links, but I think I did OK for a first effort. See: [27]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleRedWriter (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Paligap

Hi,

Just a note about this edit: you said "prod" in the summary, though you used a speedy template. A previous speedy had been removed previously. I've de-tagged the article and done a bit to tidy it up; I still reckon that the article might end up being deleted as the company is primarily known locally and the references I dug up on a quick search were mostly press releases, but I don't think it's a speedy candidate at this time. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Vally

Just some notes about the Article I created...:

1. your first edit started:...."Virgin River. The Virgin River".....and you did this:... -->..."Virgin River. The Virgin River"...that's one crazy was to start editting an article, adding a second wiki one work later....(I was still editting my second edit while you were doing this...(but you can guess what I think about missing a WIKI, one word away....)
   2. I don't care (if)(I left a word out?) you're 'to mess' with an article, but you didn't figure out this was part of Lake Mead; at least one thing good about people jumping and stirring a Pot, .....at least other realizations can come from it...(it took the reversing I did to realize the part of the Lake Mead...Virgin River arm)...(like I say, i do not mind making my ideas (or opinions) known. .....if i lose, thin i was wrong.)
   3. I have much to say, but will shorten it with this, the cabal applies in Wikipedia, .....they are omnipresent (PostSCript, mostly "guys")....(I think I participate in none), and rarely do I do "CopyEdit-ling-(I have used the term, but only in an "extreme type case"--It is a poorly used, and often an opinionated TERM(the edits), and many times MOTIVES should be analyzed-(I don't take the TIME, even on articles that I create), and I seldom(never, rarely) vote on articles, categories, (p.s. its pointless fighting a cabal), especially if their mine. (They need to stand on their own) like: Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California, which didn't survive more than 24-hrs (i think) before it was CfD'd... (It was a "misquided"...etc. .... cfd attempt, (and should go on the individual's resume-(as in 'ownership')(this is why I'm trying to get a 2nd wiki edit as your beginning line of text to become "ownership").....So quickly, at least if you're messing with my articles, even if only for 3.5 minutes, mabye somebody else in Wikipedia land is being spared... (from the HOTsonoranDeser, ArizonaUSA)....Mmcannis (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Well, instead of deleting the now sourced information, what article should we move it to? It seems like a valid thing, and since all the sources said "Las Vegas", I assumed that it was held in, you know, Las Vegas. If its not, then we should move it to the right place, rather than just deleting it, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 06:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive deletion

To save on hair, perhaps we should just delete all of Mac/Nopetro/whatever's categories and let people recreate them if they prove valid. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I regret to say that I think you seriously mishandled Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma, see the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo

Hi there, there seems to be some confusion... Please see: Talk:Carlos_Hugo_of_Bourbon-Parma#Oh_my.... Seven Letters 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Slums

I'm just wondering what your take is on articles that are just lists of slums (by name) in cities. I came across an article recently (not one of yours) while patrolling and hesitated before tagging it. --Kudpung (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is to remove it since slums are just that. However in some parts of the world I believe that there are very notable slums. As to the list article. My thinking would be how many on the list are really notable and would be able to have an article? The list would have to meet WP:NOT#DIR. I suspect all entries would be able to meet WP:V. So maybe the list would be OK. The real question might be, should all of the entries be linked? Linking can led to article creation and if we don't need articles on every slum they probably should not all be linked. I know this does not really answer your question, but maybe it helps with your decision process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Inception

The article for the film title Inception has been moved to Inception against consensus. As you closed the discussion, can you move it back and move-protect it until the issue is resolved? BOVINEBOY2008 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Letterman

I just noticed that Letterman (disambiguation) was never moved to Letterman, as it was supposed to be following the discussion at Talk:Letterman (sports) (back in April). I don't think anyone has taken it upon themselves to clean up the incoming links, but in the meantime, having Letterman redirect to either Letterman (disambiguation) or Letterman (sports) doesn't make sense, and since the consensus was that the dab should be at the base title, I request that you go ahead and move it. The incoming links are more likely to be cleaned up after they're "broken". Propaniac (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns

Hi. Since you closed the last discussion for Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns, I am writing you to ask you to close the recent one. It was opened 17 July 2010, and will be two weeks tomorrow. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Submitted an AFD on Mel Gibson's DUI. TeacherA (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really starting to get to me...

We had this conversation about private equity firm logos and files from commons a few weeks ago. If you are going to do wholesale changes your really should discuss first. It is really a waste of time for both of us for you to be removing the categories. If you had wanted you could have created an image category instead of just decategorizing. But as discussed a few weeks ago it is perfectly acceptable to categorize these images and I have not seen a strong rartionale simply to remove the categorization. The copyright violation rationale is not very strong at all - this is not an image gallery in an article. It is basically turning private equity firms into a cat for articles and images. I await a rational response for why you are wastin my time on this. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are two issues:

1. including images from commons that relate to a category in that category. I have not seen any further discussion from you on this topic. It appears to happen on a very regular basis and it would be helpful to have these images left in the general categories in which they have already been residing.
2. Categorization of logos related to private equity and venture capital firms. It would be my preference to have these images categorized as private equity firms and venture capital firms. If you want to categorize private equity and venture capital related logos into a distinct image category for private equity firms and venture capital firms that would be ok with me. What I found bothersome was the mixed approach you took to those images yesterday. Some got recategorized into a more general image category for financial services companies which I thought is way too broad to be useful here. Then for other images you just dropped the category altogether. So I would like to figure out how you would propose to proceed before you do anything further.

|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments on creating the image categories. If that is what I need to do then I will investigate doing that over the next few days. Your comment about the russian wikipedia would be relevant if these images were not used on wikipedia and I was somehow just sorting images from another wiki. I am not sorting random images from the commons, I am sorting images that appear on wikipedia so that they appear in the category with the articles to which they relate. That is the distinction and seems both consistent with general practice and helpful to anyone that was navigating these categories. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another User:Mac alias to check up on

Looking at the Category:Bioethanol mess I discovered that we also need to look at User:Nukeless: list of category updates here. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I picked up a bunch of them already, but there could be a few I missed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also discovered that our favorite person has created a ton of more or less dubious redirects (e.g. English ham redirects to York). Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, those will be more of a problem. If you create a list, we can look at them and if they fit one of the speedy criteria, they can be zapped. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started a list here. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's back. Now as User:Hamiltha I was doubtful at first when the SPI was initiated but upon inspection the editing patterns -- pointless redirects, redlinked categories, see alsos, choice of articles, the growing list of complaints on his Talk page -- are identical. It's him. Oh, christ. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure User:Bsea is also an old sock account of Mac's that he's returned to now. I've added the evidence to his SPI page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Say, thank you for closing out the Spanish Mustang move. Much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OPOWER Wikipedia entry

I noticed the wiki mark you left Aug. 7 on the OPOWER entry I wrote. I'm a new Wikipedian, and this was the first article I created. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your points so I can try to address them.

Do you have specific concerns with the layout of the article? What kinds of relevant internal links do you think should be added? Any guidance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time.

DAG KDG (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain this edit? I have seen lots of templates that automatically include a category. Nevertheless, I have no idea if this is a deprecated usage. If it is deprecated, could you provide a link to the relevant wikidocument? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox power station

Hi, Vegaswikian. In the process of merging Template:Infobox power station and Template:Infobox UK power station instead of merging, the original Template:Infobox power station was deleted and Template:Infobox UK power station was moved instead of this. I think this need undo and proper merging. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That worked. However, articles which used Template:Infobox UK power station are still missing their infoboxes. Beagel (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a consensus to merge these templates. However, as they use different code, it needs some expert to merge these templates properly. Beagel (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that we can't left this template broken. I think that maybe you could temporarily restore also Template:Infobox UK power station because a number of pages use this template and right now they also have broken infoboxes? Beagel (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Eponymous categories

Your name got taken in vain in this discussion and I figured I'd ask you about it directly. What do you think makes Category:Hemp eponymous? Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

great osage trail v. osage trail

I'm a fan of reductionism,minimalism too, but the "The Great Osage Trail" simply is not the same as "Osage Trail". The Great Osage Trail, also called the "Kaw Trace" or the "Kansa Trace" or the "Osage Trace" is only one particular "Osage Trail" running from the salt licks in present-day central Missouri, westward through present-day Independence Missouri. I would consent to leaving the words "Native American" out of the title, but the name of the article is not accurate, as is. To repeat: There are many "Osage Trails" but only one "Great Osage Trail." The article is only about the Great Osage Trail. EGDJ (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Me, again. Looking at page history, I see that I contributed to the "confusion" by saying that the "Great Osage Trail" was also called the "Osage Trail," (but only locally, as in, a Kansas Citian pointing to Westport Road and saying "that was called the Osage Trail before settlers named it Westport Road...". If the name "Great Osage Trail" is restored to the article, then the phrase "also called the Osage Trail" should be removed. I read somewhere that it was also called the Kaw Trace and I think "Kansa" or "Kansa/Kanza" Trace, but was unable to find that reference when I created the article. For now, it is accurate only to equate these three names for the one and only, same route from central Missouri through present-day Independence and southern Kansas City: the Great Osage Trail = the Osage Trace = the Kaw Trace, and this is the route of the old "Indian Trail" which ran by the plot of land which the Mormons purchased and called "sacred" in 1831. One purpose for the article's creation was to help explain the wording on that "Tree of Peace Society" marker. EGDJ (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque Plaza merge

i was wondering if you would mind sharing your thoughts here. thanks! --emerson7 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Solar energy companies

Hi, Vegaswikian. I would like to ask your opinion concerning Category:Solar energy companies and its subcategories. Right now the category includes mainly articles about technology companies and only few about solar parks developers/solar power companies. Of course, companies engineering or designing solar energy equipment belongs to this category but some separation from the solar power companies is needed. Do you have any suggestion what to do with these categories? Beagel (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure. Part of this gets back to the line where solar cells become a photovoltaic array. Is a company that produces thin film cells always involved in solar energy? Do we put a company that builds power station size facilities in the same group that includes companies that make the control systems? Do we split out construction, operation, and manufacturing? So I have a lot of questions, but no firm opinion at that point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Notifying editors of tagging

Hi, Vegaswikian. I noticed you have placed CSD and PROD tags on several articles -- yet have not notified the creator. Please remember to notify the article creator when you tag a page for deletion. I'm not certain if it slipped your mind or if you planned to do an en masse notification. Whichever -- it is best to do so before we proceed with the deletions. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OPOWER Wikipedia entry (update)

Hello. Per your suggestions, I've made changes to the OPOWER entry by adding internal links and correcting the style error for state names. Are there other changes I need to make to update the article to Wikipedia style and have the mark removed? Thanks.DAG KDG (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Monte Carlo Resort and Casino

Hi there Vegaswikian, After you made the suggestions on my User talk page last week, I worked on obtaining freely-licensed images to accurately illustrate the Monte Carlo Resort and Casino article. These images are sourced back to the MGM Resorts International official Flickr account, where I've assured that their owner, MGM Resorts International, license them under the Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license. I've also made a minor fix to the formatting of the infobox, which I noticed was not displaying all of the entered information as a portion of the coding was off.
As time allows, I'd like to get your thoughts on the article as it stands. Appreciate your initial effort to reach out to me, and if there are any suggestions you have in bringing this article in the direction of WP:GA, let me know if I can be of help. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Romanian cities category

I've reopened the question of how to name the Romanian cities category here. Notifying you and other participants in the previous discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Move?

Could you move this Jessica (entertainer) → Jessica Jung as there was no verifiable proof given. The Survey section clearly proves that Jessica Jung is more appropriate. Jessica google search doesn't yield this person in the first 100 hits ; further, this is a common English name, so I'd expect some English language entertainer might have been just "Jessica" by the IP.

News Proof Newsen Korea Daily 202.149.24.193 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a clear cut choice. Since the move that was closed, we had a mini move war. The only way this should be moved again is with another move discussion that reaches a consensus. So feel free to nominate this for moving. Personally I don't believe that this will be settled unless the discussion receives much more participation then the last one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WPO

I've started a discussion on the talk page, and you are welcome to participate there, rather than simply reverting. Your blind reverts are undoing my work beyond the disputed red link removal - you are reintroducing bad grammar, removing explanatory descriptions of the World Powerlifting Organization, etc...

As to the disputed redlinks - WP:MOSDAB is clear that you should not create links to articles likely to be deleted. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the world poker open is notable or not- I do know that the article for it was deleted - 15:31, 16 August 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted "World Poker Open" ‎ (notability not asserted) - which is a very good indication that it is an article "likely to be deleted - and as per WP:MOSDAB, shouldn't be linked to. It would be good if you'd at least restore the other stuff you've reverted., and we can continue debating the status of World Poker Open on the talk page for the dab article. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

me on ANI

Not sure what, if anything, to do about this ANI report TruckCard filed about me. Your advice would be welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would not get too excited. We have a manual of style for a reason. That reason is to have some logic behind the way the encyclopedia looks. How categories are named is a part of this. I don't think anything will happen there since this is, in my mind, nothing actionable. I will say that the editing history for that account is odd. Something tells me this is not a new editor. The interesting line is when does enforcing WP:3P become vandalism? We probably crossed that line a while ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting thought. I will say that TruckCard's action does cause me to stop participating in the discussion or reverting anything to avoid exacerbating any potential problem. So if it is a "ruse," as Occuli called it, the ruse worked. Temporarily, anyway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • There were 2 ruses, at least. Firstly to empty categories but make them redirects (which is not explicitly out of process since there is no deletion). Secondly to toss WP:3P into the mix (this can be done in response to almost anything). ANI is perhaps a 3rd ruse. New editors don't start with category creations and complete familiarity with WP:Acronyms, so it would be of interest to know of previous form. (Their first edits involved Category:Driving licences, subcat of Category:Licenses; plenty of scope for unilateral renaming in that tree.) Occuli (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Category:Driving licenses was created as a redirect by our good friend the blocked user:Mac. Occuli (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Your not thinking that... Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I had a further look. It must be conceded that this looked like a random category creation by Mac, away from his usual eco-cats. Just a coincidence probably. But if we find some intersection between truckcard and nopetro ... well ... Occuli (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for performing the Coyote Lake shuffle. Keep up the good work,--Stepheng3 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alaska Native was a bad call

I've been away and haven't seen a lot of changes that had I been around I might well have objected to; certainly in this case I would have, and am of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school of thought; there's too much tinkering with category names and template code and such going on, not enough content-making going on, and those of us who actually write content get tired of having to pick up the pieces of those who, well, are as I've said on User talk:Good Olfactory, simply moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic. I note this in your user page:

Finally even though English is my only language, it is also my worst language when it comes to using it. So, if I do a major add, it probably means someone needs to clean up my English.

Well, that would be in this case; see my comments about that category on Good Olfactory's talkpage....I get weary of having to use process to fix things that never should have gone down; your logic was faulty; sorry to presume you were not a native English speaker, as I implied there...but please note singular-name categories are normally for individuals, not groups (if the name is from another language, or in another language, e.g. Haida, Palus, Secwepemc, then only that is required; but "Canadian indigenous people" very pointedly, which would be a parallel example to "Alaska Native", would refer to individuals, not groups; if for groups; "Canadian indigenous peoples". In this case, it should simply have been "Alaska Native peoples" and I don't see why there was anything but that proposed; or if that's what it was, why it was even changed.Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Hello, you participated in a discussion last spring that resulted in renaming The Bronx as Bronx. There is now a proposal to open a new Request for Comments on restoring the original name. If you have comments about the timing of such a proposal, please make them soon at Talk:Bronx#Query: when do we consider this? because, unless a there's a consensus against such a Request for Comments, it will begin early this week. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed Move

Can you please undo this move as it wasn't even discussed. There wasn't even any consensus? Ohlly (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works though? Don't you have to have votes to conduct a move? What you did actually goes against the rules? There wasn't even any evidence of why it should have been moved from Jessica Jung to Jessica (entertainer). There was no objection but there wasn't any agreement either Vega. Ohlly (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mac

Hi. Here's a new IP that just popped up, from Spain, displaying many of Mac's interests. I'm 90% sure it's him -- unlike my false alarm last time -- and will keep an eye out. No smoking gun yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada

Hi, I understand your point with Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada, it was just a first 'single pass' to clean up the Category:Clark County, Nevada page to only grouped topics, they were hard to see with the dozen or so CDPs, Unincorporated communities, and chartered Cities cats. mixed in. It needs a local person to do the correct parent and child cats. Thanks for your attention noticing the refining needed.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CfD

Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_24#Category:Pataphysics I did not make an error; see that the main article is at 'Pataphysics, not pataphysics. I think the article and category names should match. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect edid

Why did you write, that Steinway & Sons is a company based in Connecticut?[28] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:AGF before you label a bad copy and paste as VANDALISM. That was clearly uncalled for. I'll note that you clearly can make errors since you misspelled edit on my talk page. In any case you seem to have posted the note on my talk page AFTER the correct category was added. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

– I see on your talk page (including the discussions you have deleted from your talk page), that you have made bad edits before.

– The Steinway & Sons article says very clearly, that Steinway is based in New York City and Hamburg. The names of the two cities are written several times in the article. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to assume good faith, cf. WP:AGF.

– "I'll note that you clearly can make errors since you misspelled edit on my talk page.", (said by User:Vegaswikian). Misspelling of one single word on a user's talk page can never be assumed as vandalism. That you mention the misspelling of "edit/edid" is just ridicules. Come again...

– "In any case you seem to have posted the note on my talk page AFTER the correct category was added.", (said by User:Vegaswikian). Completely irrelevant – a user can ask another user a question, whenever he/she likes. Come again...

(– I hope, that you saw, that I did not use the word "vandalism" on your talk page.)

– I have noticed, that you do not answer the question – Why did you write, that Steinway & Sons is a company based in Connecticut?[29]. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain a bad copy and paste? Your charge of vandalism is clearly still in the edit summary for anyone to see. As so having to explain errors, I guess you are perfect and never make a mistake. While I do make errors, they are a small percentage of my total number of edits. And again, you really do need to read [WP:AGF]]. Also please stop with the lies. I have not deleted any thing from my talk page of late. Archiving is done automatically and it is rather different then deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

– "Do I really need to explain a bad copy and paste?". Yes, why do you think I asked?

– "Your charge of vandalism is clearly still in the edit summary for anyone to see." Perfect, that anyone can see your edit, that was extremely wrong, as I have written here above.

– The other irrelevant stuff you have written is waste of time, so I don't want to comment on that.

– I have noticed, that you still do not answer my very simple question above, which is written in an objective way. But you have written a lot of irrelevant stuff instead. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be my final response since I have real work to do. A copy and paste error was made and corrected. That is not vandalism and you would see that if read WP:VANDAL You refuse to read or understand WP:AGF. You have accused me of deleting material from my talk page which is false. Since you are seem to have an agenda and don't acknowledge my real factual concerns I'm not going to address anything since the charge is not valid. I made a mistake and it was fixed, end of story. You seem to have some kind of an agenda that I don't understand. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

– I am sure, that everybody can see, that you are trying to give the impression, that I made a big mistake.

– You wrote a completely wrong thing about Steinway by adding Connecticut (and removing the United States). I corrected your mistake for you.[30] You are welcome. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisting of page name change for faith healing

Hi,

I see that you have relisted the request for the name change of the faith healing page - why was that done?

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Caps changes

I didn't know. Thanks for the warning. Who was the editor in question? --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

From a quick read, it looks to me like the issue had a lot more to do with Rich's heavy use of bots and AWB than with the content of the edits themselves. I don't have a bot, and I don't use automated editing tools. All my edits are by hand, so I wonder if the precedents set by Rich's case would apply to me.

I've yet to see anyone revert a capitalization change, so I doubt this is a very controversial area. What are your personal opinions about template capitalization? Do you object to any particular edits of mine? Is there some policy or guideline that I've violated? Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizing template names seems logical to me, given that page names are automatically capitalized in the headline, but in the end this probably boils down to a matter of taste. I wish there were a guideline to follow. It's not worth editing a page merely to change the capitalization of the first letter in a template name. I've only made such changes when I had some other, more substantive reason to edit the page. My edit summary should indicate what that reason was. I'll stop changing the capitalization of first letters for awhile in case you care to discuss the matter further. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rain Nightclub

The article Rain Nightclub has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion that this meets WP:COMPANY - the given references are stories about celebrities which happen to mention the club in passing as a location. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Unclear what "first mega club of Las Vegas" means, but a quick news search suggests it's the same hyperbole as "one of a kind hot spot".

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Proposed British sports stadiums

Hi, regarding this edit you made [31] is there some Wiki guidance that nav boxes should not have links to general categories, as otherwise I think the first of the two categories you deleted is a potentially useful one for people to click on if they were at the template. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2009

2009 is an international article for events of international significance (see WP:RY. Events that are notable only or largely in one country belong in that country's Year article ie 2009 in the United States. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang (Norwegian band)

I'm a bit lost as to why Big Bang (Norwegian band) was moved to Bigbang (Norwegian band) after the requested move. The edit summary cuts off, so I must be missing something essential here. — ξ^xplicit 08:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I reread the discussion it was not clear which of the two spellings should be used. It appeared that the single word was the most correct and had some support. The part that was cut off said, if I was in error, let me know and I'll move it back. What was clear was that they should be disambiguated. Your actual nomination paragraph said to move it to Bigbang (Norwegian band). Vegaswikian (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I missed a space there in my original rationale. I meant that the page should be moved Big Bang (Norwegian band), as Allmusic separates the words, and the use of "Bigbang" seems to be a stylistic thing, as the same is done the Korean band, despite the name also being spaced at Allmusic [32]. — ξ^xplicit 17:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix it. Glad to see that I'm not the only one who does things like that. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I make mistakes left and right around here, I'm surprised I haven't blocked myself yet. — ξ^xplicit 17:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I needed to become and admin to fix all of my mistakes without bothering others. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for coming late to this, but I wasn't aware of the RM until links were altered after the fact. I am a bit disappointed to see allmusic.com used as a determining factor, a source I would argue strongly isn't RS, but I notice noone familiar with the subject participated in the discussion. It is beyond doubt that the only correct article name is BigBang (with Bigbang used by those who don't make the extra effort). I am not keen to restart the RM process but could you tell me where I should pile the authorative sources? Cheers, MURGH ^talk 20:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Using BigBang would not be following the guideline as I see it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I should note that there is no "correct" way to stylize either of the band's name. Sources like this also use "Big Bang" over "Bigbang" or "BigBang" and Bigbang (what the hell?). There's also this Norwegian source that I'm assuming refers to the band. Simply put, the lack of one stylization means we go with the most conventional, I guess you could say. This rule also applies to Lady Gaga, who sometimes has her stage name stylized as Lady GaGa. I don't know where the claim that Allmusic isn't a reliable source, it's considered one of the most reputable online sources for music out there. — ξ^xplicit 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about the validity of Allmusic as RS isn't what I had in mind. Suffice to say it holds little weight against national newspapers and public broadcasting stations. NRK[33], TV2[34], Dagbladet [35], Adresseavisen [36]. I wouldn't call the Gaga example pertinent. We are not talking typography gymnastics but follow a wide range of precedents such as iMac, eBay, dZihan & Kamien, t.A.T.u. and I'm sure many others I'm unaware of. At any rate, there is actually a significant difference between "Big Bang" and "Bigbang" where the latter was more correct. MURGH ^talk 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Trans States Holdings

Thanks for your correction last night. Its been a while, and I guess I forgot about the whole tables not counting... :p thanks! --Admrboltz (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Headed in the right direction?

Greetings, Vegaswikian. Though it was eons ago, I noticed that you were briefly involved in the Accce article. I just joined in here, and was wondering if you could take a peek at my initial thoughts and proposed infobox on this article's talk page -- even if only to give me an indication as to whether I am approaching this in the best manner. Thank you, Carthan (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note -- I understand that subjects like these are not fascinating to all, so no worries - I'll look into talking to some folks at the Wikiproject Energy. Cheers, Carthan (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Vegaswikian, Thanks for the help with the List of landmarks in Las Vegas. I saw your comments on the edit summary, I want you to know I do plan on making it a complete list or something resembling it eventually. I would really appreciate your help in getting there, if you ever find some free time please try and contribute to the content of the article, I will work on it whenever I get some free time. I think its an important enough list to be covered on Wikipedia and you might have some authority on the topic if your username is correct. Thanks again for the help. Regards.Theo10011 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

coyote springs

Hey Vegaswikian, can i work on coyote springs page or aleast sent you my ideas of what to be added to the page (Las vegas kid (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)).

Have reported this case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtubek. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario Pinball Land

Hi, Vegaswikian. Could you re-move Super Mario Pinball to Mario Pinball Land? An editor disagreed with the move and tried to revert it but it got all screwed up. Thanks. Powers ^T 15:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Man-made disasters‎

Hi, thank you for taking care of that move. I plan to start improving it once I finish this other article. Cheers,Veriss (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppets, Searchlight edits

Could you explain, simply what the sock-puppet thing is? I had thought that User:Hike796 must be an alter-ego of you (sorry, but I didn't know what to think)... I messaged HIM, twice, he never replied... so who is ?, or what is User:US40AL-01..?... and what's this all about ?... (I am curious, is somebody else INSIDE my computer stealing things?)...Mmcannis (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmcannis, I just think you should answer the question on my talk page to help us out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your input?

Frankly, I'm not sure where you stand on this, but am curious to know, and believe it would be helpful either way. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Large Cock

I finished the "drop deleted category" for ya; it was still linked in the 2nd example, you only got the first. Zaphraud (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Basin Divide, in Nevada

(Sorry for wordiness, (after-statement))
Mmcannis here. So, my first question is: did you look at: User:Mmcannis/sandbox/Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins-?..and since this (Message to You) is because you made a comment on GoodOlfac, page) about -1- (A new Article vers.), and -2-, a category you proposed for merging: Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Nevada.. and I was just looking at User:Hike796, and considering messaging him, asking him if he will just adopt a copy of the page...(I DO not, intend to work on it,(only make valleys, Flats, etc.) (I haven't sent Him a message.. I'm NOT willing to talk to him, if he has no desire to respond (he's never responded). So with your Reason of: quote: "quadruple intersection" -?-...on the MERGING.., please, a definition
And the message I sent to GoodOlfactory hasn't been answered by him.. I am not necessarily willing to just MOVE the REPLACEMENT, to an "article" for CNDB, (I don't wan't anybody to think I'm trying to Resurrect, or USURP, or Re-CREATE a deleted article)-Central.Nev.Des.Basins, User:796 's article-(the Vers. 2 didn't REF, and Ver 2 of Central Nevada Desert Basins, and the new name I was going to use was: Sample:Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins, the actual article:....Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins...(I thought the Original CNDB, was a close ENUFF name to a GOOD name for the region).
Last evening I made the List of valleys of Nevada, (and I had already made 3 of 4 Antelope V., Goshute, Three Lakes, Fish Lake Valley, Lake Valley (Nevada), for Nevada, (and others I may have overlooked). So, I already was getting to know the VERY Complex layout of Nevada. (the List of valleys only took about 2-hrs)...
I Just re-read your comments at GoodOlfact.
Skookum, (didn't look at Basin and Range province)... The article is incapable of dealing with Nevada.. It deals with ALL of Western U.S. (HIS REF to it, was totally, "mis-correct", i.e. wrong). I want to make the article as I stated, but I am not going to get any editors excited, and I don't think Hike796, wants dialogue. So unless, you (since you commented on this at G-Olfact.) or G-Olfact. comment on this, the article probably will just sit at the place-User:Mmcannis/sandbox/Central Nevada endorheic valleys & basins,.... it is stored-. (and you'll merge the articles)
How about if you message User:Hike796, before more dialogue on the merge?.. (that's kind of an official request, since you seem to be a peacemaker, mediator, (and maybe you read all of this messae)-anyway, thanks for ending the darn, edit wars....Mmcannis (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed draft -- what do you think?

Happy Friday, Vegaswikian. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. You might recall collaborating with me in the recent past (our conversation here) and I was wondering if you could take a glance at this other travel-related article that currently exists in draft form at: User:Jeff_Bedford/Proposed_Royal_Holiday_article. I feel it is ready to be moved to mainspace; but thought it would help to get a second look before doing so. What do you think? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being of help again. I've posted a follow-up note to you and another editor who joined in to add feedback as well: User_talk:Jeff_Bedford#Proposed_Royal_Holiday_article Thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Just wanted to let you know that you've made a (relative) newcomer feel quite welcome here over the past few months. I'm amazed at how quickly you responded to my inquiries on two separate occasions, always lending a helpful and constructive hand. How is your diligence humanly possible? My best indication is that you maintain a fleet of interns (quality ones) who take care of the laundry, dishes and errands in life, thus allowing time for improving the encyclopedia. Regardless, I thought you should know that your work doesn't go unnoticed. Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

New move proposal

A user has proposed a move at Talk:Commonwealth of Nations#Requested move, roughly 12 hours after you closed the pervious move discussion. Is there a guidelien on how long we ought to wait until a move proposal is closed before proposing another one? The previuous discussion ran for 27 days as it was, so it's not like there wasn't enough time to discuss it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is an attempt to just discuss the correct name without the issue of reverting a change that was made against a previous consensus. Not an unreasonable motive. There is no policy that says you have to wait for some set period of time. In general where there is consensus you should wait for a period of time before making a new request. If there is no consensus, then the wait period can be much shorter. So the question would be how my close was viewed. If it is taken as simply reverting a move that was made without consensus, then I guess some editors would view that as a no consensus close. If forced to voice an opinion, I guess I would opine, 'is there any harm in letting this new discussion run its course?' Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully he'll accept the consensus if it goes against him again, and not devise another reason to request a move! - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Australian place appears to be broken

Hi. You may wish to take another look at your recent edits to {{Infobox Australian place}}. Adavale and other places where the "est" field is filled in, such as Cowell, South Australia, are now appearing with a superfluous "{" above the infobox. Many thanks, Mattinbgn (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted for now, and working fine now. I'll see if I can spot the issue. Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry check

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01. Perhaps you could add your observations. I don't think diffs are necessary, we just need to present a good reason to go forward with the check. I'm at the point now where I strongly suspect but I'm not sure enough to proceed without CU. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the sockpuppet results, I've noticed the user(s) is/are a problem, both with their obsessively idiosyncratic category creations (some of which I've successfully listed for deletion in the past), and the near incoherence of their talk posts. They seem rather convinced they are right and respond to attempts to make changes with some hostility. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not been jumping at warnings leading to a ban since I'm trying to sort out what is actually going on. Sounds like everyone else may be in the same boat. Maybe we are at the point where we need to start warnings for edit waring and vandalism. I remember how long it took the last time we had to clean up categories. A lot of editors were upset by the large number of nominations. But we could be in for another round there. WP:AGF has a breaking point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Note we are now starting to link and dab information in references. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• See the results. They couldn't check on the old sockmaster, but User:Mmcanis and User:Hike796 are unrelated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. So they really are different people interacting in a weird way. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Will you tell me if you see any more strange behaviour from either of them? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yea. I don't watch their edits, it's only when they hit articles that I follow that I become aware of them. I also pick them up sometimes doing category cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Well look at the categories from today that are being added. Small USGS units I believe and not well populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm a a point where I'm unsure of what to do about this. I suppose if he keeps it up after being told those categories are probably not a good idea, we can go from there. Until then, we just have to keep nominating the categories for deletion? It gets tedious after awhile. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I guess we need to watch for new categories and then issue a formal warning. It's the only option I see that is available. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Is 71.219.251.248 and second similar IP address, that created Great Basin problems in June 2010 (ie:Category:Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region & Category:Southern Mojave-Salton region) with a Sockpuppet investigation-block then by Vsmith I believe, the same editor as User:Hike796 now? If so does it help with an expanded block?---thanks for each of your efforts above---Look2See1 t a l k → 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Valley region

Hi Vegaswikian, First, thanks for your delete-merge cat: efforts with User:Hike796 generated cat: population boom in Great Basin. They certainly have been popping up a lot. He has also created a 'mini-article', Death Valley region with name of & in the new cat: I recently created, Category:Death Valley region. Any article benefiting readers is welcome, however he choose, via article, to re-align 'place region' cat: as a physiographic one, weighting Great Basin far more than Mojave Desert. I tried quick edit on it yesterday, but that's inadequate and it's still unclear. Could you please consider helping it out?

Brief history: earlier in year moved some articles in Category:Death Valley National Park to Category:Death Valley, that were outside park's boundaries &/or seemed 'in depth-in detail' beyond "general public-park visitor" use but in region. Recently on [Category:Death Valley] talk page there was discussion about topic-place articles in cat: that are not in actual Death Valley. Realized my idiosyncratic first pass was inaccurate, so reluctantly created a third D.V. cat:, the Category:Death Valley region as a 'place region' to encompass any watershed, natural history, ecology, human history, or geographic articles related to but beyond valley or park boundaries. (Similar to Category:Flora of the California desert regions that includes Colorado-Sonoran, Mojave, and Great Basin deserts vegetation, independent of drainages-ecoregions-ave. elevation/temp. range-etc.)

Back to 'Death Valley region' - is article even needed-or need improvement? If so could you help please? (ie: Panamint Valley is floristic-Mojave/drainage-G.Basin) Also, is this new third cat:D.V.... [Category:Death Valley region] clear enough-best solution? Thanks again (re: user:Hike796 issues, my learning curve, & much more) for all your desert focused efforts.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 20:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Basin landforms

Hi Vegaswikian, re: Category:Great Basin landforms, another User:Hike796 new cat. Is this also one for deletion nomination? The Category:Landforms seems to be used for geo-political entities, ie: states and larger, not regions (or counties). Usually in the latter, [Category:Mountain ranges of xyz] is under [Cat:xyz] or if exists [[Category:Geography of xyz], ie: Category:Mountain ranges of Southern California => Category:Geography of Southern California; & => Category:Mountain ranges of California => Category:Landforms of California. If I'm wrong, and this cat. is appropriate, should it be renamed to wiki-standardized [Cat:Landforms of G.B.]?

In a recent restoring of Category:Mountain ranges of the Great Basin with Category:Geography of the Great Basin, User:Hike796 re-deleted it with inline 'they are " landformes" ' (British english?), which is very true, but can make them hard to find, per above wiki-precedents. I was just trying to find [Cat:Great Basin hydrologic basins in California], and that similar difficulty, until finally remembering [Cat:Great Basin landforms], & resulted in this post to you.

Separate issue: was attempting to find 'my newish' Category:Great Basin hydrologic basins in California as questioning its name, context, & necessity. History: when saw Category:Southern Mojave-Salton region with just Category:Great Basin it seemed confusing for non-basin savvy readers, and tried to clarify with the new cat. Title is awfully unique. Perhaps better if it's just merged with parent Category:Great Basin valleys and basins (or if you/other editors think it's worthy to keep, renaming it [:Category:Great Basin valleys and basins in California]) ? Sorry for all the words here & in D.V. entry above---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 22:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Vegaswikian for your responses. Sorry for questions overload. Will let the Great Basin system clarify and not do any more G.B. cat: edits. Hope ones earlier today didn't make things worse, please just rvt. any that did. Same wait-stop re: D.V. region. (My primary backround-metier-profession is botany, where plant distribution regions, floristic regions, ecoregions, et al often have 'fuzzy'-ecotone boundaries.) Thanks again---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Populated places

Hi, cleaning up my earlier [this year] mistake of putting all Clark County pop. places in a then new [Cat:Cities of C.Cty], including non-incorporated & CDP entities. So now my misplaced ones are getting [Cat:pop. place in Clark.Cty] & [Cat:CDP in Nevada] or [Cat:Uninc. com./town in Nevada]. Not clear on your question & want to be, seems one cat. at county and different one at state is standard ? Please let me know if otherwise.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Still confused, sorry, it seems that Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state) is similar to Category:Populated places in Nevada, with NV missing some like cat:neighborhoods & cat:planned communities. Washington does have the 1 specific Category:Populated places in King County, Washington in [Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state)], I can similarly put Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada in [Category:Populated places in Nevada] ? Are you advising that new [Category:Unincorporated communities in Clark County, Nevada], & same with [Category:Census-designated places in CC, NV] - [Category:Unincorporated towns in CC, NV] are needed-ok ?

I'm reluctant currently to create any new 'desert located anything' cat.s - after the other editor's recent plethora of micro-G.B ones, and questioning enough of mine too. I did today's new [Cat:Pop. places CC] only in response to an editor's [yours ?] very valid point in Sept. that with [Cat:Cities CC] I had put non-inc. communities in it, otherwise would not have.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, with [Cat:Planned communities in NV], or [Cat:Plan.cmm. in C.C., NV], it's yours [and any other local editors] place to decide, as I'm not a NV resident. I had typed & saved a Category:Populated places in Nevada by county earlier today, but with only Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada & an unorganized Category:Reno–Sparks metropolitan area & Category:Washoe County, Nevada without any Category:Populated places in Washoe County, Nevada, [along with my "no new desert cats." timeout], - I didn't set it up. Perhaps for states like WA & NV with only 1-2 major metropolitan areas/counties it can wait ?

The Category:Populated places in California by county is only 'populated' with 18 of its 55+ counties. I have created a few of those to clean up the parent [Cat:County, CA] or sub-cat. [Cat:Geography of county, CA] pages - when one couldn't see the 'big trees' articles for all the 'little sapling settlements' ones. The motivation was actually the same when did hasty [Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada] in Sept., though that was for settlement sub-cats "clutter."

Have finished cat. tagging all the Clark non-incorp. settlements' articles & their sub-cats. Will now [to not startle your watchlist] take quick pass to make sure both articles & sub-cats. for the Clark inc.-cities all have their tags ensembles too; & unless hear otherwise will put Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada in Category:Populated places in Nevada, .....and then will quickly depart Great Basin-Mojave territory......

With our favorite G.Basin editor reverting your good Lake Mojave cleanup with [cat:state boundaries] back, upon reflection realized need to get busy and put that cat. on every Calif. beach, town, city, county, surf spot, lighthouse, etc. within tsunami zone of Pacific O. state boundary line - & then on to China and back.... Anyway, please advise as needed, want to learn---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

History repeats itself

Hi, hear you on cat:history not to join a cat:NRHP on articles, and will not repeat that hereon. Did set up some other NV county history cat.s where mining was-landmarks are significant. [alas have double done it on them too, & for months on other states/counties.....] Will undo as come across them all again. I'm learning from your approach and comments on edits too, such as on Topock Gorge & Lake Mojave - with your actual deletes and beyond to the criteria behind them that's widely usable elsewhere. Thanks anew.---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Temporary move back

A user moved the page 2010 in Japanese music to 2010 in J-POP and then mangled the redirect page. For several reasons (WP:CAPS, that it covers more than just a single genre of music, that this should be discussed first), would you be able to move the page back, and then I can create a proper move discussion for the user? --Prosperosity (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox software

plz enter a label engine between label8 =Operating system and label9 = Platform

like this,

| label8 = engine

| data8 = {{{engine}}} --777sms (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not supported by the text??

Concerning this edit: How is this not supported by the text? It's the second sentence in the article! That sentence has no other content. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

I noticed it came up in some of the CfD discussions - we generally shouldn't ever be using the word "watershed" in either category or article names. Watershed is ambiguous because it has opposite meanings in American English vs British English, in the U.S. it means drainage basin while in the U.K. in means drainage divide. Use "drainage basin" instead, that is unambiguous. In the case of our stuff created by our favorite article/category creator - if the subject is a USGS hydrological unit, than it should say "hydrological unit" instead of either "watershed" or "drainage basin" since they are not synonymous. Kmusser (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cold question

Do you think this category scheme is inappropriate in some way? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I may not like it, but I suppose it is OK given that we have Category:Vice Presidents of the United States by party. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Incidentally, how are things on the Hike/Mmcanis front? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • [37],[38],[39]. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeeesh. Is it just me, or is it very difficult to follow these "stream of consciousness" postings? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Must be just you. The rest of us don't comprehend a word of what is being said. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't even see a stream. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps the stream got drained off by the action of the watershed. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

CFR

Hi Vegaswikian - could I get you to have another look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 12#Category:Former sports venues in the United States, please? Grutness...wha? 10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's time again

Hi, Vegaswikian. I've decided to go ahead and block this sock now, rather than wait for the inevitable future kerfluffle. The edit history is painfully obvious -- but I wanted to double-check with you first, in case I'm was missing something there. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it does have some of the past flags. Looks like they have improved their use of English a bit. I'm still working to cleanup the USGS HUC problems. At least there, one editor seems willing to redo the category structure to do a long needed major English neutral cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Valley region #2

Hi Vegaswikian, Thanks for asking about Category:Death Valley region, and clarifying-improving it by delete/rename. After reading many wiki-articles on various "region" types lately, to improve my understanding and future usage, and as a first pass here, it seems very broadly that regions tend to be in one of four groups:

• 1.) physical geography group - with scientifically determined, generally agreed, clearly delineated boundaries
• 2.) geopolitical group - with legislation-treaty established precise boundaries
• 3.) historical-political, visual-aesthetic, and socio-cultural region group - with defined, or generally agreed upon, or established over time boundaries; that range from 'clear'/singular; to 'fuzzy'/overlapping; to opinionated variable options, to [weasel term] edges
• 4.) natural history group - with determation by biota presence/range, &/or averaged climate and elevations, &/or visual landform boundaries that are: clear-simple, orr transitional-ecotone-intergrade, or stop & start, or have significant exceptions

To possibly apply above to our locale: "d.v. group" 1.) Category:Death Valley basin itself, drainage basin-watershed, features & places; "d.v. group" 2.) Category:Death Valley National Park, removing "visitor interest filter," for articles on anything within the park boundaries, & child [cat.D.V.]; "d.v.group" 3.) outside DV and DVNP - ie: Amargosa Desert-Amargosa River-Amargosa Valley, mining-ghost towns-old RR lines-stops, Timbisha homelands; "d.v. group" 4.) convert old "Category:Death Valley region with the "ill disciplined" plants, animals - to possibility below.

Possible solution: a new Category:Natural history of Death Valley region, only for "d.v. group 4" natural history biota-ecosystems articles, and "d.v. group 3" selected 'non-human history' landforms and natural places articles. It could be a sub-cat. in Category:Death Valley National Park and Category:Natural history of the Mojave Desert. "It" is not defined by Great Basin water movement or Mojave Desert history. If a plant [article] is endemic to the valley floor, the Eureka Valley, or the Panamint Range it can be found here. The 'D.V. region' is so rich from the unique extremes of its location and being a large transition zone from M.Desert. ecoregion to G.B. ecoregion, that one valley nor artificial park boundaries can contain it. Another option is just use existing cat:D.V, cat:DVNP, & cat:N.h.of.M.D.

Shared in spirit of early discussion, not final standpoint. Your question's final solution can be a wiki-precedent for consistency.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the use of region is completely ambiguous and the introduction does not help. Category:Natural history of the Mojave Desert or Category:Natural history of Death Valley might be better targets for this as you suggested. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With a bit more reflection, perhaps just deleting & not renaming [D.V. region] cat. - and moving articles to one of 4 existing [DV], [DVNP], [M.D.nat.hist.], & [M.D.human.hist.] cats. is most succinct. Later I or another editor can do a list article [Native plants of the Death Valley region] with plant articles. I've started a list for Sierra Nevada, as some editors strongly disliked [cat:Flora of S.N./cat:Fauna S.N.] in Yosemite-Sequoia-parks etc. cats. or as "see also" link in their articles, and other editors suggested list as peaceable solution with easy reader access. If delete the cat. & move articles is acceptable I'd be glad to figure out what goes where and do it.

Not certain on wiki-protocol, but if ok could do that soon & 1.) also remove "region tag" & empty cat., or 2.) leave "region tag" for later en-mass removal if approved? Was glad to see 'my' [Cat:Basins in the Great Basin that are endorheic basins or lakes and are in California too] quickly deleted due my posting Approve as cat. creator. Could this be same, also for delete [cat:M.D. Lakes in Calif]? Sorry for more questions.---Thank you---

Let me nominate it for deletion with the note that anything that needs to be categorized in that area is in the right tree, or will be shortly. You can comment at the CfD discussion. This way it is done in the open. With you being the creator, there should be few if any objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for solution with transparency! Will get articles in the right trees over weekend, and comment on CfD page. Please just ask if my cat:Mojave Desert relinks need help. I'm self-banned from any watershed-basin edits/cats. currently, but noticed a large edit on List of Great Basin watersheds, seems maybe a number of endorheic basins went out with the bathwater? ---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

All articles in Category:Death Valley region are now also in the right trees, ready for cat. deletion when approved. Good luck with architecture => buildings work.---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RM question

As a brand-new admin, I thought I'd tackle some of the backlog. I saw a requested move Talk:Greater_Dayton,_Ohio#NewName, which looked straightforward, until I read it. You raised a good point that the two terms do not cover the same area. However, one of the responders notes that the article is about the Metropolitan Area not about Greater Dayton. The other responder says the same thing in a different way. I looked at the article briefly, and tend to concur, but I'm not familiar with Dayton, so I may be missing something.

Your post wasn't even formally an oppose, just a question, but I'd like to ask if feel that your question has been answered adequately.--SPhilbrickT 14:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to RM! A lot of editors like to move articles that include the census defined metro areas to articles that are so labeled. From experience I have found that to be problematic especially when using the metro area causes problems for everyone. Las Vegas being one where even the local editors are not sure what should be in their project or area since it covers an area about as large as New Jersey. The change to metro area there switched the article from about 400 sqmi to 8,000 sqmi. So having said that the local editors should have their input be given a higher weight in most cases. If the two are basically the same, then using one name that has a defined area over another could be reasonable and desired. Not knowing any details, moving that one probably makes sense.

When you do the close, don't forget to update the double redirects (I limit my updates to double redirects from articles and let the bots deal with the rest) and any non free image links to the article. Also it's best to update any templates that link to the article. Also remember that the participants can be a fickle bunch and they will let you know if they are not happy. Just do the best you can at seeing where consensus is.

In this case, I asked a question about the situation since I was not sure. In the end I don't know enough or feel strongly to say yea or nay. So my question was asked and answered. It supports moving the article so you should be OK in doing so. Thanks for asking BTW. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative rock categories...

Could you kindly move it over there or show me how? Wikkitywack (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:American College Header.png

How can having a non-free image in Category:The American College (Pennsylvania) possibly be a copyright infringement?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vegaswikian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_8#Category:Cultural_Property_of_Great_Importance.
Message added 14:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

Since you were involved in the orgininal discussion. I am notifying you that it is now at DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 29 -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

surnames, partial titles and primary topics

Hi,

"Place names do not have a god given right to always be at the main name space." LOL! I think that's ultimately what the support votes might be about. However, they rationalize their position by basing it on the notion that "partial title" matches should not count as much in determining primary topic.

I obviously agree with you at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move, and would like to see this reasoning more clearly explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but am having trouble coming up with persuasive arguments for those who seem to think that surnames in particular, and "partial titles" in general, don't count in determining primary topic, unless the topic in question is particularly known by the surname or partial title (as in Einstein). For the general discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topics_with_other_titles. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Architecture categories by year

In order to demonstrate the usefulness of these categories, I've placed many more articles into the 1802 architecture in the United States category. These categories are almost empty simply because we're waiting for a bot to move articles into them, as there are dozens of articles that belong in these categories. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you nominate Category:1802 architecture and all others like it? There's no good reason to get rid of a few diffused categories when you disagree with the entire structure. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MOS

The MOS is not a set of hard and fast rules which must be followed under any and all circumstances, they are guidelines which encapsulate some of the the best practices that have been used in the project's history -- but not everything. If an editor chooses another kind of formatting, as long as its not detrimental to the article in some way, you should back off from attempting to change it. MOS changes over time, and the way it does that is by people trying new things, but that can't happen if anything new and slightly different is immediately shot down. I'd appreciate it if you'd give other editors a bit of leeway in their editing, and not attempt to force them to change. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the TOC because the article doesn't need a TOC -- it's got a lede and one substantive section, the rest is all pro forma stuff. As for the image size -- what do you mean "oversized"? About 90% of Wikipedia articles have sized images, so simply specifying an image size isn't "oversizing". If there is a specific problem with the size of an image, let's talk about those specifics and see if we can fix them together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the whole "use unsized as a default" is really a myth that needs to be put to bed. Remember that only registered users can set their thumb default which means that the vast majority of viewers who come to Wikipedia see an unsized thumb as a very small image, and that's not beneficial to them, or to us. What the MOS actually says about sizing is this (emphasis added):

The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:

*Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
*Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
*Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
*Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.

As you can see, that is a much more subtle set of directions than "unsized only".

In the meantime, I've looked at the article again with an eye to your objection, and I agree that the images are a bit large, so I've taken both of them down a bit. I'm about to look at it with another browser (something I do regularly when working on the visual aspect of articles) and see how it looks there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Contrary to your closing statement saying that there is no consensus to move, the article was renamed to Far Right in Croatia (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Far_right_in_Croatia#Request_move) --96.231.71.176 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I'm not sure that the guidelines address this specifically. In any case, there is was no consensus for the proposed moved. Yes, the article was moved, so if that move was not appropriate it can be renominated. In my view, there are issues with the name, and it may need to go through several before a consensus is reached. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Las Vegas Valley

As a "vegaswikian" you should already know some answers about "Las Vegas Valley".... Las Vegas Valley is a ReDirect to the many items in "Las Vegas proper", the Las Vegas metropolitan area..

And, you just erased (got Cfd'd).. the "cat:Las Vegas Wash Watershed".. the basin you just referred to: it contained, (see: User:Mmcannis/sandbox/List of Las Vegas Wash Watershed category articles). the following watershed (basin) article/items:

The list of articles

• Bird Spring Range
• Clark County Wetlands Park
• Frenchman Mountain ( -?- )
• Jean Pass (north)
  • Jean Lake ( -?- )
• Las Vegas Valley (landform)
• Las Vegas Wash
• Mountain Springs Summit
• Tule Springs

(the DeLorme Atlas, has 'Las Vegas Valley' alongside U.S. Route 95 going nwest out of Vegas, (but the Valley is obviously the whole "Las Vegas Valley") (the map contains the central location-the city, (not listed on city) because the letters would sit upon the streets))
(reply to your question)Mmcannis (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative rock categories...

Hi! I proposed several moves in the wrong forum awhile back (which you quarantined as Category talk:Alternative rock musical groups templates). I went to WP:CFD and am confused as to how I offer up multiple categories for discussion... when you have a moment could you guide me through the process? Thanks for your time, Wikkitywack (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I do it right? (I tried it over at American alternative...) - and how do I reinstate my introductory spiel? (Is it just me or is this a lot more complicated than WP:RM?) Wikkitywack (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, final question: how do I add the line to the nomination? (This is what I mean by it being more complicated... everything's automatic over at WP:RM. Not to mention, you can do one big listing for multiple pages without having to nominate each one individually.) Thanks for all your help! Wikkitywack (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, you're absolutely right. It is obvious - in fact I did it before over at WP:RM. In this case, I clicked on the wrong edit links to follow the code and in my jitteriness, got confused... Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Using "completed in" category for lighthouses

Hi there. You are probably aware of this but I thought it's worth a mention anyway. On most lists of lighthouses there is confusing between the date construction completed and the date of official lighting. I therefore made it a custom not to use "complete in" for lighthouses. Maybe there is a better approach to this, but I never checked what the practice is. I presume that in all the cases where you changed it, you checked the sources and you are convinced this is actually the date construction ended. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been checking where there is another date. If the lit date is only one, I favor that. I'm changing these from the architecture categories since those are really ambiguous as to why the building is listed on that date. I will say that these dates are problematic in many cases and I have removed the year categories in that case and added fact tags in several articles. I have also found them to be picked with no reason based on the article contents. You are just pointing out more problems with the lighthouse information. Would it make sense to have these in a year lit category? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the sources are very often ambiguous. As the dates for lighthouses usually appear in a table rather than prose, there is often no good way to be certain if this is the year the lighthouse was built/completed, lit/established or in some cases planned/designed. That's why I just use "X architecture" which is ambiguous. Adding year lit categories will in some cases be appropriate, but with the rather lack of activity in WP:LIGHTHOUSES lately, I don't see who will care to populate them. I guess I'm not offering a solution here, just pointing out a problem which you are already aware of. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there's not a lot of point in making a distinction. There is a tendency to view activation of the light as completion; I suspect that if we went back into the original records we might see some of the same confusion. I haven't come across a lot of cases where there is a clear and substantial (i.e. multiple year) difference between the two (see Fort Washington Light for an exception, as it was a structure built for another purpose and then converted to a light). Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that there is not going to be a great single solution here. The mistake, if any, was probably including the architecture category at all with a specific year when the year is in question. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:X architecture

I'm not sure what's up with the mass changes you've made like this. What will be the point of categories like Category:1924 architecture once you are done? It's a genuine question, not sarcastic. Killiondude (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the only entries I'm changing is to add a more specific category under the building and structures completed in each year. Category:building and structures is a well established tree. So all of these building remain in the yyyy architecture tree as a subcategory. In most of these, bridges were already broken out so this type of split has already been started. Second, many of these structures should actually be listed twice in the architecture tree since they generally have two reason for inclusion. The first is when they are completed. The second is when they were designed. The design is really the significant architecture feature since building and construction is more engineering related. What I'm seeing as I go through these is that inclusion is almost always based on the completion date. The vast majority of article never mention design. I suspect that this is going to highlight the fact that so far completion has been the import date for categorization. I also expect that in the end, someone will start categorizing by year designed. For many of the existing articles, this is not currently listed with the exception of the more modern buildings. I'll also add that there are articles included, like Virginia War Museum, where there is no mention of the building. Why does that belong in the an architecture category at all? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights template

Hi VW, where was the discussion about moving the AR template? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Animal rights as is normal for WP:RM requests. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saw it. It leaves us with an awkward situation (one template with two names now), which I raised on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Category:Eponymous categories

I have made a post at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Eponymous categories regarding your addition of Category:Wood and Category:Oil palm to Category:Eponymous categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Buildings completed.....

You seem to be changing a lot of categories "xxxx Architecture" into "Buildings and structures completed in xxxx". In some (many?) cases the buildings were not completed then but at a later date. Please do not change the category in this way if the building was not completed until a later date. It makes no sense.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am changing these to the completed date in the article or infobox. I have actually been removing a lot of categorizations that are not supported by the article text and I have been correcting infoboxes and categories based on the text in the articles. So I'm surprised that you think I am making these changes on many articles incorrectly. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case you are not reading the articles properly.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And now you are trying to say that Liverpool Town Hall was COMPLETED in two different dates. That's really silly.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, it was built in one year and rebuilt in another after the fire. So unless the buildings were identical it was built in two different years as two buildings. Given that it reflects architecture in two different years, that is a logical conclusion. It also points out ambiguous nature of the Category:yyyy architecture structure without subcategories to explain why the articles are included there. The other option would be to have articles on both buildings. Then some of the issues with dates would be clearer. What I have done in some cases like this is move the year categories to redirects for the various buildings so that each building is only in one year category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

{ec}What I am finding is that we have a ton of building articles that are poorly written. Dates in the articles and the infoboxes don't agree. Years in categories are not mentioned in the articles. So if I am not reading the articles correctly, it could also be the fault of the article. So where I do make change that is not right, please change the categories as needed and reword the articles to make it crystal clear why they are in the year categories that they are. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010 -->? Talk:Sino-American relations

you closed the discussion, however there was another arguement not responded where consensus cant wait forever. At the very least the "American" part was off if not Sino.Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not built by mere vote tally. See the template for Foreign relations of the United States, no other refers to "American" This seems like an oversight bythe creator and missed by others.Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reassessment

You reassessed Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah) here stating that there's no need to lower the assessment. The article recently passed the A-Class review for WP:USRD. A-Class is higher than on the WP 1.0 Assessment scale. I have reverted your change. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. However there should be a link provided to the discussion that led to the A assessment. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Both ACR reviews are linked from the Article History at the top of the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it is in there but you have to expand the box to see it. Also odd that the box at the top and bottom is treating GA as higher. I think that template needs some work to make all of this clear in the displayed summary. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is still a Good Article, even if it has now been rated higher as A-Class. The two statuses are not mutually exclusive. GA-Class is just a class on the WP1.0 scale. Good Article is a rating through the Good Article Process. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Caesars Entertainment

I didn't think linking to commercial sites was allowed on Wikipedia, especially to a website that promotes a brothel. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Buildings and structures by year

i don't agree that it is unnecessary or cumbersome...perhaps the question should be put to the community. --emerson7 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on EMERGY page

I've noticed for some time now that you placed tag requesting in-line citations on this article. There are inline citations and in view of other articles (see for instance Succession) which have no in-line citations, I do not understand your tag.Mtbrown8 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ready to go forth, wanted to see what you think

Hello Vwikian -- you've been quite helpful in adding your two cents in the past, and I've got a question I'd like to bounce off of you. I've been chipping away at a revision draft of the PepsiCo article (much needed, as it is rated as Start-/C-Class;Top importance) and it is finally at the stage where it seems ready to be implemented. I've already worked in initial feedback from User:Rich_Farmbrough as discussed here: Talk:PepsiCo#Thoughts_on_revision. Just feel that a second set of eyes could help -- am I heading in the right direction by being bold and implementing the edits I've proposed? Thanks for your input, and enjoy the warm winter weather out there in Vegas -Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on the article's talk page. I've implemented the proposed revision, and will look to expand the introduction in the near future (as you recommended) so that it better summarizes the contents of the article. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Roleplayer has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For your help with my request at the help desk, thank you very much! I'll remember not to edit Wikipedia when I'm tired next time! -- role^player 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Windmills

Hi, I noticed you recategorising some windmill articles. A couple of things - the removal of a windmill is not a trivial matter, and therefore a removal date should be seen as a date of building at the new site (New Mill, Cross in Hand). If you feel it necessary to remove a mill from a specific year of building category, then it should be placed in the relevant architecture by decade category (Windmill Hill Mill, Herstmonceux). Carry on with the good work! Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

With Herstmonceux Mill, 1814 is the most probable (and generally accepted) date of building, but it cannot be definitively stated that it was built in that year. Hence my addition of Category:1810s architecture after you removed the 1814 cat. I know little of lighthouses, but there are probably experts out there on that subject. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

John Deere

If anything underscores the validity of this move, it's that of at least 400 inbound links in articlespace to "John Deere," fewer than a tenth of those were intended for John Deere (inventor). I've corrected all of those. The rest all intended to link to what is currently Deere & Company.- choster (talk) 07:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a dab hatnote so that John Deere (inventor) can be easily found. (that is by other than by plowing through the article's text.) If this is in error, please let me know. If it just needs reworking, please do it. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

McCarran

It seems you are correct on the flight but oddly it's on one but not both of their route maps. Under Explore then Maps it's not on that route map and when I looked at their schedules I couldn't find the flight. 71.55.136.174 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

architecture cats and dates in NRHP articles

Hey i notice ur edits of NRHP articles on my watchlist, such as this edit, removing year categories for historic districts and questioning other dates. In general I think your edits are fine and good. I wonder, though, if u'd like to be even a bit more systematic, and to add architectural categories and more specific significant date info to such articles. It happens i have newfound command over NRIS database. I could possibly generate a report for u which would provide links to a large set of articles, say all in a given state, say, and give expanded architectural categories ready to cut-and-paste in, and also state more significant date information. It seems there are many existing articles started with Elkman generator output that were started without suggesting/including several architectural categories. And the generator's output only stated the first significant date when a good many had multiple significant dates entered, sometimes reflecting a date range (e.g. that a place was built in 1841, and was expanded c.1870-c.1880, if u read the NRHP nom doc). I wonder is there a smallish state, or a type of architecture nation-wide, that i could serve up such a report to you? Utah or Nevada or Wyoming are good because i could also provide links to available online NRHP noms for those, if u wanted to check interpretations of output from NRIS. Lemme know if interested. --doncram (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's I agree with Vegaswikian on removing many of those architecture-date categories from NRHP articles. Particularly in the case of historic districts, buildings were built over a period of multiple years, decades, or even centuries, and there is no particular significance to the particular year that happens to have been listed in the National Register's database. Even individual buildings often represent several different dates, since they often were expanded. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about how best to deal with buildings that have additions. I have no idea what dates are really significant and the articles don't help. So a storeroom was added, is that significant? Does that move the date the building was completed? I guess this is something that needs to be asked somewhere. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting wrinkle on dates is that construction may not have been completed until at least a couple of years after a building was designed. Is the "architecture date" the date of the design or the date of completion? (This argues for using ranges of dates, I guess...) --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That is why I have been been adding completed. It is less ambiguous then architecture which is ambiguous unless you discuss why in the article. Based on the ones I have read, this is not really discussed so unless the date is explained we don't know. I will add that most articles do mention the date as a completion date. And as you point out, there are the ones with multiple dates. There is also the case where you have several buildings in one article with different dates. Those are easy, move the dates to the redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just rolled back your attempted change of "Built" to "Founded" in the infobox at Temple Ohabei Shalom Cemetery. Two reasons:

• You can't just change a line in a template to a new one -- if you do, the data simply doesn't appear. "| founded = 1844" is equivalent to "| built = " and the line will be ignored.
• While I agree that there are some issues with NRHP dates, policy is to use the ones provided. If you want to change policy, take the discussion up on the project talk page, not by making individual changes against policy. Acting against policy after being warned is grounds for blocking.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And exactly which policy is that? By making that change, the date of founding is retained and not mislabeled as built, but as you point out it is no longer displayed. After having go through over a thousand of these, I'm finding many errors where the wrong information is being used in the infobox which is resulting in the mistake being propagated to categories. This is expected when you try to display two pieces of information in a single field. You might also want to consider reading WP:AGF. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Vegaswikian

I spotted this on my watchlist with the edit summary "More specific category", and went to see what category had been replaced by what.

Answer: none. No category had been replaced by a more specific category.

Instead the article had been unstubbed. Fair enough, the article had long since cased to be a stub. That was a good edit, but not a good edit summary :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I do make mistakes. Sorry. I guess Firefox filling in the field for me makes it trivial to make errors. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you noticed the stub tag removed, what do you think about a stub like MAD2L1 or Estrogen receptor alpha at 42,000 bytes? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I make that autofill mistake too, tho my most common editsum glitch is going to paste something into the editsum field and ending up with just "v" cos I didn't press the control-key well enough, and not spot it until the save is underway :(

Estrogen receptor alpha is an interesting case. Tons of markup, but nearly all in footnotes, and sod all body text. Personally, I'd leave it as a stub, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who unstubbed it. Same with MAD2L1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Undo-move request

Will you please undo the move you performed here? It is related to a controversial move request under discussion. —Eustress ^talk 14:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)