User talk:Koavf/Archive037

User talk:Koavf archives

001 81 topics (2005-03-05/2006-03-07) 63 kb 002 56 topics (2006-03-07/2006-08-08) 44 kb 003 47 topics (2006-08-08/2006-09-14) 48 kb 004 60 topics (2006-09-14/2007-06-05) 73 kb 005 48 topics (2007-06-05/2007-08-21) 80 kb 006 35 topics (2007-08-21/2007-11-30) 73 kb 007 42 topics (2007-11-30/2008-02-19) 44 kb 008 34 topics (2008-02-19/2008-03-26) 46 kb 009 38 topics (2008-03-26/2008-04-19) 38 kb 010 39 topics (2008-04-19/2008-05-31) 60 kb 011 88 topics (2008-05-31/2008-08-04) 88 kb 012 40 topics (2008-08-04/2008-09-11) 61 kb 013 46 topics (2008-09-11/2009-04-13) 47 kb 014 60 topics (2009-04-13/2009-09-29) 50 kb 015 37 topics (2009-09-29/2009-11-21) 46 kb 016 22 topics (2009-11-21/2010-01-04) 22 kb 017 49 topics (2010-01-04/2010-02-18) 54 kb 018 63 topics (2010-02-18/2010-03-23) 63 kb 019 44 topics (2010-03-23/2010-05-02) 48 kb 020 46 topics (2010-05-02/2010-06-28) 56 kb 021 46 topics (2010-06-28/2010-09-01) 71 kb 022 54 topics (2010-09-01/2010-10-14) 43 kb 023 49 topics (2010-10-14/2010-11-26) 43 kb 024 54 topics (2010-11-26/2011-01-22) 37 kb 025 61 topics (2011-01-22/2011-06-08) 37 kb 026 43 topics (2011-06-08/2011-07-12) 39 kb 027 44 topics (2011-07-12/2011-08-15) 48 kb 028 44 topics (2011-08-15/2011-10-08) 42 kb 030 73 topics (2011-11-25/2012-02-17) 62 kb 031 47 topics (2012-02-17/2012-03-14) 74 kb 032 40 topics (2012-03-14/2012-04-15) 39 kb 033 41 topics (2012-04-15/2012-05-01) 43 kb 034 42 topics (2012-05-01/2012-05-30) 38 kb 035 58 topics (2012-05-30/2012-07-27) 73 kb 036 44 topics (2012-07-27/2012-09-03) 87 kb 037 41 topics (2012-09-03/2012-10-26) 61 kb 038 47 topics (2012-10-26/2012-12-01) 111 kb 039 56 topics (2012-12-01/2013-02-05) 78 kb 040 63 topics (2013-02-05/2013-05-14) 69 kb 041 71 topics (2013-05-14/2013-09-04) 135 kb 042 81 topics (2013-09-04/2014-01-09) 109 kb 043 53 topics (2014-01-09/2014-05-15) 69 kb 044 62 topics (2014-05-15/2014-09-17) 92 kb 045 123 topics (2014-09-17/2015-05-16) 156 kb 046 66 topics (2014-05-16/2015-11-11) 73 kb 047 91 topics (2015-11-11/2016-09-30) 113 kb 048 43 topics (2016-09-30/2017-01-09) 74 kb 049 67 topics (2017-01-09/2017-07-21) 96 kb 050 35 topics (2017-07-21/2017-09-11) 75 kb 051 50 topics (2017-09-11/2017-11-25) 83 kb 052 82 topics (2017-11-25/2018-06-13) 106 kb 053 99 topics (2018-06-13/2019-01-01) 219 kb 054 124 topics (2019-01-11/2019-09-23) 240 kb 055 89 topics (2019-09-23/2020-02-04) 190 kb 056 105 topics (2020-02-04/2020-06-20) 253 kb 057 61 topics (2020-06-20/2020-09-11) 158 kb 058 372 topics (2020-09-11/2022-09-10) 596 kb 059 71 topics (2022-09-10/2023-01-05) 98 kb 060 93 topics (2023-01-05/2023-06-05) 113 kb 061 156 topics (2023-06-05/2024-01-10) 262 kb Current discussion

Wikipedia entry about you

Hi Justin - congratulations on your tireless work; this post to inform you that I've just created a Wikipedia article about you. I hope you welcome my idea. --Itemirus (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'm flattered. I may not meet the notability requirements, though... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Also It seems inappropriate for me to comment on the deletion itself directly either way, but I'm putting it out there here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You are much more notable than many people who have an article here. Also you've been praised by Jimbo himself! Have a nice day :) --Itemirus (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks You flatter me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just curious: why the age box in your userpage is set with a birth date 25.02.1982 while you set your birthday on your Wikipedia entry at November 18, 1982? I guess the latter is correct? --Itemirus (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Age It's a totally legitimate question. This is quirky, granted, but I'm very pro-life and I prefer to think of my age starting from the womb. Although not at all common in the West, this is standard in Japan and Taiwan—you just add an extra year to your age. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Biologically correct; and I've always considered that aspect when counting my age and my son's as we both were born preterm. --Itemirus (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent In addition to honoring me, you've also made me feel like less of a freak. It's not easily done. Thanks! Good to know that I'm in the same rare air as Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges, too... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your work on User:Jenova20/Born This Way foundation, it all helps ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Maura Tierney and Flann Ó Tighearnaigh

Okay, I just have to ask. What's the connection that merits a "see also" for Flann Ó Tighearnaigh on the Maura Tierney article? Erechtheus (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Tierneys He's a descendant of the Tierneys, as far as I can tell. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. Gotcha. Erechtheus (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Love This Giant

Jimmy Fallon Their Jimmy Fallon appearance isn't part of the tour. We should remove it and place it under "promotion" once they appear. Pohetri (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Losing My Religion

Hi, yesterday I fixed the hatnote formatting at Losing My Religion. The hatnotes are already italicized, so adding apostrophes around Grey's Anatomy and Home Improvement reversed the italicization into regular text. Television shows should be italicized. Anyways, that edit clearly wasn't vandalism, and rollback should not have been used on it. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Italics As you pointed out, the text was already italicized, so it's standard to de-italicize text that would normally be italicized to make it stand out the way that it should. Rollback is not exclusively for vandalism—I didn't intend to imply that you were deliberately trying to undermine the quality of the article, just undo what you did efficiently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, but I trust your judgement. However, you're wrong about what rollback is for; from Wikipedia:Rollback: "Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected." Rollback is used to revert vandalism, not good faith edits. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback From that same page (emphasis added): "rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism." See also Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback, where several examples are given of scenarios to use rollback that are not vandalism. I will grant that the edit in question does not meet any of those criteria, but the page is explicit in several cases about this not being exclusively for vandalism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, user space rollbacks, self reverts, etc. are acceptable, but the page is pretty clear that the tool should not be used for good faith edits, which was the case here. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality is a perversion

Homosexuality is a perversion.

Oops

I should have checked the history I didn't know you wanted that on your talk page. Will revert. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 02:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love This Giant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sean Smith (diplomat)

Reverted your redirect. A just created article about a current event being redirected shortly after creation because of 'little content' is premature. Continue discussion on talk page. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Foo Fighters discography

Hi there, I noticed that you have edited pages relating to the band Foo Fighters and was wondering if you could help out with something. I am currently in dispute with User: Cathartica about certain things on the Foo Fighters discography page. I am trying to stick to guidelines but this user is doing completely the opposite. Just one example is the in Wikipedia:Record chart it states that Bubbling Under 100 chart positions should not be added on as an extension to the Billboard Hot 100, and User: Carthartica insists on doing this despite what it says in guidelines. I have been told by an admin to take it to the Foo Fighters discography talk page, which I have done and User: Cathartica does not seem to want to discuss the matter. This is just one of many issues regarding the same article and User: Cathartica. Any help much appreciated.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure For what it's worth, I'm not an admin. I'll help if I can, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Salim Ghazi Saeedi

Hi Justin, this is an article related to a band that you deleted before, the article shows some notability but not good enough I think. Its an unsigned musician with some reviews that non of them are reliable. plz take a look. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Funstyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Signing

Simple Song (The Shins song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Mercer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

English-language songs

Hi, was it you who got round to emptying most of Category:English-language songs before me? If so, good work! and how did you do it selectively? I was going to purge it and then revert the changes on the former sub-cats and lists. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did it. I usually just looked at the artist and figured out if he was American, Australian, or British--that did 90% of the work. I made Category:English-language Mexican songs too. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. What I meant to get at was, what tools did you use, please? – Fayenatic London 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tools WP:AWB and WP:HOTCAT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. It must have taken a lot longer than feeding a bot. Well, thanks again! – Fayenatic London 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot It was a little time-consuming, but I was happy to do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lang icon edits

Hi, you added a category to the "<lang> icon" series of templates, which was reverted and mentioned at Template_talk:De_icon#Category_link, and I have undone your edit to Template:Fi icon. Do you remember why you added this? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tracking It's tracking that parallels "Articles with X-language text"--why would it be removed? We should keep track of non-English links here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what the category does, however the icon templates are data retrieval templates that are used in other templates, and adding a category into the icon templates breaks other templates. Can you remember what caused you to add the categories into the icon templates? Maybe we can add the tracking into some other template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates No--there aren't any other templates to signify foreign-language external links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Then the simplest option is to add a nocat param to all of these templates so that other templates (such as {{User SUL Box}}) can explicitly say that they don't want a category added. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Code Go for it, then? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Further help required.

In view of the consensus now reached (thanks for bringing it to everybody's attention), and your ability to do the moves to already used name spaces, perhaps you could be kind enough to move the following.

• List of Alexandra Burke songs
• List of Belinda (entertainer) songs
• List of Beyoncé Knowles songs

*List of Faith No More songs Now done.

• List of Guillemots songs
• List of JoJo songs
• List of Lana Del Rey songs
• List of Larry Norman songs
• List of Mariah Carey songs
• List of Morgana King songs
• List of Patti Page songs

*List of Shakira songs RM

• List of The Jackson 5 songs
• List of The Velvet Underground songs
• List of Katy Perry songs

*List of U2 songs Done by Justin

The rest I have already done, with the exception of the RM pages, where I have made comments on the talkpage. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving I'd be happy to assist in implementing consensus (see above with the English-language songs issue), but I don't know how I can help you here. You'll probably have to take all of these to technical requests at WP:RM. If you want me to be the one to list them, that's fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have had this wrong, having seen this edit and the List of songs recorded by U2, both moved over redirects I thought you could help with all the entries. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Moves Moving over redirects is only possible when the other page has no history. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Got called away. Thanks listing. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Best of Led Zeppelin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

Celebration Day (video) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Condé Nast

Definitive Collection Mini LP Replica CD Boxset (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

Led Zeppelin Boxed Set 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

Led Zeppelin Remasters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

The Complete Studio Recordings (Led Zeppelin album) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

The Song Remains the Same (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sound editor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

image permission problem

Hello Koavf, we have a problem. please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foo_Fighters_with_John_Paul_Jones_and_Jimmy_Page,_2008.jpg. --Puramyun31 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB tagging talk pages

I notice you are adding WikiProject Sport banners on football logos, why not use the WikiProject Football banner instead? Happened to be in your contributions because I reverted one of your earlier edits. Cheers, --Cloudz679 20:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete speedy CFD nominations

Hi Justin

I have just opposed a long series of nominations by you at W:CFD/S. None of the nominations set out which of the criteria apply, and one links to the relevant article or category. This means that any editor who wants to review them has to research what the intended head article or category convention is, before they can assess whether it meets the speedy criteria. The same process then has to be done over again by the closing admin who assess whether the speedy moves are implemented.

The nominator is assumed to already know the answer to those questions, or else they wouldn't make the nomination. To save other editors the pointless task of having to repeat the nominator's research, please set out clearly the reasons why each category was nominated. This should not take long, because all it needs to say is something terse like "C2C per convention of Category:Foobar" or "C2D per convention of head article Foo foobar". Once that's done, other editors can quickly and easily do multiple checks on the validity of the rationale, and examine whether they want to oppose on other grounds.

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay I understand what you're saying, but I find it hard to understand how that wasn't intelligible. I've literally posted over a hundred times to speedy CfD with the rationale "per main" and never had anyone object like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It was guessable, but why not make it explicit? Why leave editors to infer things when a few characters provides a lot more info, and means that most of the checks can be done using WP:POPUPs.

Pretty much every other nominator at CfD/S does that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Guessing I don't use POPUPS--I find it cumbersome--and I can never remember all of the criteria's short-hand. Honestly, if "C2D" can be inferred, then surely it "per main" is even more intelligible (and it could even be inferred by an outsider.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Justin, why leave people to infer when takes about 10 keystrokes to set it out explicitly? I don't have all the speedy criteria in my head either, so when I find myself needing pages like WP:CFD/S/C and WP:CSD I keep them as links on a menu in my bookmarks toolbar. That way they they are always to hand. If even if you don't want to do that, you have to find your way to the [[WP:CFD/S}} to make the listing, and all the criteria are set out there.

I was AGFing on this, until I found this edit in which you changed the recommended nomination format earlier today. "Per main" may be a colloquial way of referring to C2D rationales, but it doesn't cover any of the others, and it is a bit much to change that without discussion.

If you don't want to use POPUPS, that's fine. But many many other editors do, and it saves a lot of time for admins. However, even without popups, the checks on the nomination can be done much more quickly with the link ... and since admins are obliged to review any speedy action against the criteria, those checks have to be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Sarcastaball

Hi. Why did you remove the policy notes box from the Sarcastaball talk page without an edit summary or rationale? Was this an error? Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal Because the kind of person who would add miscellaneous trivia to this article is the kind of person who wouldn't check the talk page anyway. This notice is true of every single page on Wikipedia--why is it applied there at all? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It was placed there because the South Park episode articles are often targets for the exact type of material described in that note box. You're not wrong to argue some who add such material might not check the talk page, but that doesn't mean that no one would. Besides, I've seen editors add things to articles that commented-out notes in the article explicitly admonished editors not to, so should we remove all commented-out notes too? Since I work on the SP episode articles regularly, and have to deal with such editors, I would request that we leave that box there, so that newbies have a quick reference to policies they need to learn. Nightscream (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Trivia By all means, re-insert it. I think this works better as an edit notice, for what it's worth. And yes, South Park articles are more-or-less magnets for trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Categorization

I was trying to accomplish two things: First, I removed "Category:Albums by artist" because these cats. are already in "Category:Jazz albums by foo", or "Jazz albums by foo-land artists" etc. which themselves are subcats of "Albums by artist". Isn't it redundant to also include the super-category? Even if I remove "Albums by artist" they are still in that tree.

Well dang, those categories aren't in "Albums by artist" after all. Thanks for the heads-up. I've left everything alone for the time being, including the following... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, the other thing I was doing was to remove "Foo-style jazz albums" from "Jazz albums by foo" - for example, Category:Chick Corea albums contains Category:Free improvisation albums, Category:Latin jazz albums, Category:Smooth jazz albums, Category:Soul-jazz albums, Category:Big band albums, Category:Avant-garde jazz albums, Category:Post-bop albums, and Category:Free jazz albums. The (unintended) implication here (I believe) is that every Chick Corea album belong to all of these categories - I think these would be better handled on an individual basis, at the article level. (In some cases this is not an issue, if a given artist mainly stuck to one style.) The second thing was a task I mentally stored away a while back; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2010_1#Sub-categories. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally Category:Jan Garbarek albums contains Category:Albums by Norwegian artists and Category:Jazz albums, but these could be replaced with the single category Category:Jazz albums by Norwegian artists. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Right Almost everything you're doing is perfectly fine--minus the removal of Category:albums by artist. I have to admit that I don't know enough about (e.g.) Chick Corea to say that his style varies too much to be generally classified by subgenre, so I'll have to bow out due to my ignorance, but clearly if you have someone who has a strong identification with one or two subgenres, it's fair to say that he belongs in that category. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Article maintenance tags

Just a note regarding this edit, article maintenance tags, including {{toomanylinks}}, go at the top of the article as per WP:LEAD. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But Several of them explicitly state that they are for sections. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true, when a maintenance tag says "section" in the description they are fine in a section but when they say "article" they belong at the top. Many templates have some way of making them section specific using a parameter. In this case, using {{External links|section}} does the trick so that would be an alternative to moving the template to the top. I'll move the template back with the new style. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections But there is only one references section... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand your reply. I comment was about the difference between {{toomanylinks}} and {{toomanylinks|section}}. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Links Sorry--what I meant is there is only one section for external links. Therefore, the template is only ever relevant to that section. If an article is written like an advertisement, then {{Advert}} applies all over. If an article has too many links, you don't really need to see that right at the outset--it's only germane at the point where the links are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of relevance of the tag but a matter of visibility and urgency. Putting the tag at the top as an "article" tag is high visibility, high urgency. Putting it in the section is lower visibility, lower urgency. So the question at hand is your intent with regards to that. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Urgency Since it's only relevant to those reading the external links, it's not at all urgent that casual readers need to see it anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you deemed it low urgency for general readers, please use the template switch to make it a section maintenance tag, not an article one, in the future. You are failing to see that maintenance tags — in addition to calling attention to a problem — are requesting readers edit the article to fix it. If you wish to discuss it further, please take it up as WP:LEAD's talk page and I'll join you there. Otherwise, please use article maintenance tags as per WP:LEAD. PS The bolding of the first term in your replies is somewhat confusing which I think is opposite of your intention. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How would anything be different if I added "|section"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean different literally, the template documentation explains that at Template:external links/doc. You could have also compared the two version in the history of the article: 1) with section parameter and 2) without section parameter. If you mean different in a "how's it better" way, I already explained that and ask that you take the discussion to a WP:LEAD or somewhere more appropriate than your talk page for guideline-related changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin (video)

Hello. The discussion I had started at Talk:Led Zeppelin (video) has drawn comments from three editors besides yourself. User:FunkMonk, User:Mlpearc and User:Plant's Strider have all stated a preference for the title Led Zeppelin DVD, each also indicating they believe the word "DVD" to be part of the title and not a description of the media format. Would it be ok with you if we now move the page to Led Zeppelin DVD? If so, remember last time I moved the page, it was not possible to do so by non-admins and I made a techincal move request which resulted in User:Anthony Appleyard (I butchered his name a while back) making the move and labeling it "uncontroversal". So is there a better way to move the page? Or can you move it, that is, if we decide if it's best to do so? Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Justin. I have added a new post back at Talk:Led Zeppelin (video) requesting your input and opinion on the next course of action. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

CFDs closed

Hi Justin

I closed 3 CfDs nominated by you as "no consensus": 1, 2, 3. In each case, the proposed action was "delete" but the rationale referred to merger, without naming the merge target. That contradiction may be why there was no substantive discussion on the proposal, so no consensus was formed.

It would have been pointless to relist the discussions, because the nominations would still have been unclear. Feel free to renominate them, but if you want to merge the categories, then don't say "delete", and do say what category you want to merge to. Your edit summaries says that are using WP:Twinkle, which makes it all very easy; just select "merge" from the drop-down list of options. See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#XfD_.28deletion_discussions.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Eastern Europe.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eastern Europe.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect edits

Hello, Koavf. It appears you have made a whole series of incorrect edits to album-related categories. For example, you edited Category:Cows albums to add the {{Albums category}} template, but without any parameters. This results in the page indicating that it lists albums by Cattle, and puts it in a parent category about Cattle. I've never heard music performed by cattle, and it might be an interesting experience, but I doubt that is what our readers are looking for. I can easily fix this particular instance by changing the template to read {{Albums category|Cows (band)}}, but this is not the only such edit you have made in the past 24 hours. I'd appreciate it if you would go back over these edits and correct any other errors. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Album categories See the edit history for WP:CFD/S. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but you didn't propose to rename Category:Danzig albums (albums by a city) or Category:Doves albums (albums by birds). Does this mean I have to go through all your edit history myself looking for these cases, since you apparently aren't willing to do it yourself? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No It means that I'm in the process of doing it myself. By all means, assist if you want. If you don't, it will get done in relatively short order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koavf! I've fixed some that pointed to disambiguation pages: Category:Blondie albums, Category:Dido albums, Category:Luna albums, and Category:Maniac albums. Please review your edits to see which other categories should be fixed. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I've made [more category fixes since my last post here. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Led Zeppelin - Celebration Day.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Led Zeppelin - Celebration Day.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 4.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Something long-overdue

		The Category Barnstar
		For your heroic work in reorganising and renaming squazillions of categories relating to popular music. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Death rock

You may also want to nominate that one for renaming. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Template talk:Portal/Images/Western sahara.
Message added 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dismbiguators

Here's a list of dismbiguators in current {{Albums category}} names, I have left in non-dab parentheticals (X) and (not was) for example, as much to make it clear that this is a raw list as to serve as a warning. Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguator list

(band)  : 523 (musician)  : 49 (singer)  : 39 (rapper)  : 35 (American band)  : 19 (entertainer)  : 9 (group)  : 9 (British band)  : 8 (Japanese band)  : 5 (UK band)  : 4 (Canadian band)  : 4 (punk band)  : 4 (South Korean band)  : 4 (French band)  : 4 (Swedish band)  : 3 (metal band)  : 3 (German band)  : 3 (New Zealand band)  : 3 (Australian band)  : 3 (Norwegian band)  : 2 (English band)  : 2 (country singer)  : 2 (Serbian band)  : 2 (American group)  : 2 (Taiwanese band)  : 2 (guitarist)  : 2 (rock band)  : 2 (US band)  : 2 (American entertainer)  : 2 (composer)  : 2 (singer-songwriter)  : 2 (duo)  : 2 (music group)  : 2 (pop band)  : 2 (Chilean singer)  : 1 (Taiwanese singer)  : 1 (Italian band)  : 1 (Indian band)  : 1 (Costa Rican band)  : 1 (garage rock)  : 1 (Irish band)  : 1 (Double You)  : 1 (funk band)  : 1 (New Wave band)  : 1 (Bangladeshi band)  : 1 (electronic artist)  : 1 (saxophonist)  : 1 (pianist)  : 1 (Italian singer)  : 1 (hip hop group)  : 1 (Finnish band)  : 1 (X)  : 1 (performer)  : 1 (1984 band)  : 1 (folk band)  : 1 (jazz group)  : 1 (Romanian band)  : 1 (comedy)  : 1 (artist)  : 1 (?)  : 1 (1980s band)  : 1 (Belgian singer)  : 1 (R&B band)  : 1 (poet)  : 1 (actor)  : 1 (liturgical group)  : 1 (hard rock band)  : 1 (Brazilian band)  : 1 (drummer)  : 1 (International)  : 1 (American R&B group)  : 1 (Polish band)  : 1 (Belgian band)  : 1 (jazz band)  : 1 (Argentine singer)  : 1 (UK)  : 1 (UK rock band)  : 1 (folk musician)  : 1 (Spanish band)  : 1 (girl group)  : 1 (American musician)  : 1 (Danish band)  : 1 (Latvian band)  : 1 (animal collector)  : 1 (U.S. band)  : 1 (Puerto Rican musician)  : 1 (French singer)  : 1 (French musician)  : 1 (Welsh band)  : 1 (electronica band)  : 1 (jazz singer)  : 1 (reggae band)  : 1 (Norwegian singer)  : 1 (x)  : 1 (organist)  : 1 (American rock band)  : 1 (American singer)  : 1 (bass guitarist)  : 1 (South Korean singer)  : 1 (Not Was)  : 1

Excellent Thanks. Some of these (e.g. "(Not Was)") aren't disambiguations, but this is a great start. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's worth moving (performer) to the more popular (entertainer) and (US band) to (American band), etc. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Definitely There should be no "(US x)" or "(UK x)" but "(American x)" and "(British x)". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK the template currently categorises by artist, based on whether the artist category exists. It considers the most common disambiguators, which in our sample would cover more than 99% of the cases. It does not currently consider whether the artist category exists. This is because there is a strong case that if there is an artist page, and an album category, there should be an artist category. If that case is not acceptable, then I can refine the template. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Odd See Category:AC/DC_albums, where the template is apparently generating Category:AC/DC (band)... Why/how could that be? (Also, I don't know if you watch my talk, so I'm using talkback. Please tell me if I should stop.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's because it can't differentiate between redirects and ordinary articles. Frustrating. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Category generation I don't think creating all of the non-existent redlink categories is wise. Although there is Category:The_Balham_Alligators_albums, those are all redirects to the main page. There are no articles on songs or members or a discography either. Note that there, the template is generating Category:The_Balham_Alligators_(band) for some reason as well. I'd advise deleting that functionality immediately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, oodles to many redirects for that to work. So we can go with blue linked categories only, should be safer. Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Right And then speedy-CfD the ones that don't make sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Er.. which ones? Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

E.g. Category:Witchcraft for Category:Witchcraft albums (the latter should be moved to Category:Witchcraft (band) albums.) That's what I mean. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Zac's talk page.
Message added 16:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wasn't sure if you wanted me to respond or not. Zac (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Koavf. You have new messages at Zac's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— ṞṈ™ 16:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I saw your userspace links to {{User free speech}}. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Question.

You added the categories, Category:Alternative rock songs, Category:Folk rock songs, Category:American rock songs and Category:American folk songs to Category:Songs written by Joseph Arthur. I am curious how the 4 cats pertain to the category (I am not familiar with this particular J Arthur so have no axes to grind) However, you may wish to read an old Cdf I proposed some time ago, which is semi-relevant. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops I've now added them to Category:Joseph Arthur songs. Thanks for the post to my talk! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was a mistake, so I am extra pleased with your response. I was only looking for a comment. Not sure if they belong where you have put them either, for the same reasons, but not something I really want to fight the rest of the world on. LOL. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Categories Well, Joseph Arthur is categorized that way and so is Category:Joseph Arthur albums... why wouldn't his songs be? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I am merely asking, I have no other motive and do not wish to get into any arguments on the subject. But I do notice that the article on Joseph Arthur does not give any genre (save that he once played in a blues band), all the entries in Category:Joseph Arthur songs specifically and only say "alternative rock" whatever that means! By the time you have added a further 3 cats the reason for cats has been watered down and become pointless. Again all IMO. As far as I am concerned most music fans don't understand "genre" where it comes from, what it means and ultimately why it is there. However, no fight from me on the matter. If you want to respond I shall see it here. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cats Eventually, a large category like Category:Alternative rock songs will be diffused by nationality, so instead of Category:American folk songs, Category:American rock songs, Category:Alternative rock songs, and Category:Folk rock songs, he'll eventually be in Category:American alternative rock songs and Category:American folk rock songs, making more refined categorization which is also more useful for navigation than excessively broad categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have at least confused me. :) Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: When Sweet Sleep Returned

Hello Koavf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of When Sweet Sleep Returned, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: prod declined. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)