User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2012

Las Vegas edit notice

Vegas, noticed a page edit notice at Las Vegas, Nevada. Did you place this? If so, what is the justification for that? Was there a consensus to do this? Comment at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada please. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicaea, Empire of Nicaea

I don't think attributing Nicea to the Latin kingdom which ruled it over 50 years is OK. could you just please rename it to Niacea as it was historically named instead?--Rafy talk 20:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the new name was a bad call. The Empire of Nicaea is a triviality compared to the importance of the Nicene Creed. Placenames are never disambiguated by former states, either way, unless these states are coterminous with the location's existence. That is certainly not the case with Nicaea with its long history under the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires. Constantine ✍ 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, moved as proposed above. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "Niacea" was a typo. Isn't it Nicaea? Dohn joe (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be the historical name as I read the comment. Nicaea is the dab page which is why it was not moved there. That was one of the issues in the RM discussion that was not brought up. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift re-rename.--Rafy talk 22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still pretty sure it's a typo. That same editor (Rafy) also spelled it "Nicea" in his first comment. No one on the talk page used "Niacea". A Google Books search of "Niacea" and "council" only gives three relevant results. Note that the other editor directly above (Cplakidas) also spelled it "Nicaea". Dohn joe (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the dab page was moved no sense holding this up for a primary topic discussion. So I think everyone should be happy now that it is at Nicaea. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re relisting of Kolkata

Vegaswikian, as Admin to Admin, I am curious as to your rationale for relisting the Kolkata RM. I almost closed this one today, but didn't. I think the decision is obvious from the discussion if one weighs both sides equally. I am not being critical of the relisting, but as a relatively new regular RM closer, I would like to know how other admin RM closers are thinking. Indeed discussion was ongoing, and I suspect there's still hope on both sides about the outcome, but do you think that relisting tempers that hope with reality and just extends more opportunity for others to weigh in, regardless of the inevitable outcome. Just curious. Thanks -Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, discussion was still active. Then there was a mention of this discussion on one of the project talk pages in the last day or so. That could bring in some additional input. Personally this could be closed either way as I read it and you would be correct. No matter which way this is closed, I'm sure a lot of editors will not be happy. BTW, it looks like the move was the result of a straw poll that was split and had a lot more input then the RM discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, always good to get different insights. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

555 Edgecomb

1. you moved Paul Robeson Home (sic: Paul Robeson Residence) to 555 - I understand the whole common name thing, but I do not know what you mean by 57,000 hits. I am editing the Paul Robeson article.
2. I have a major problem with the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, which I am editing. The "original" building at 103 West 135th Street is officially considered by the New York Public Library as being the Countee Cullen Library. But all mentions of it in the press always list that as the "original" Schomburg Center. So, I don't know what to do. I have never found any reference to the 103 West 135th street as the Countee Cullen library except when published by the New York Public Library.
3. Can you fix the article entitled The Slave Route Project and just rename it to the Slave Route Project. Only 2 articles link to that and one is the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.

thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. There were 57,000 google hits for the address and only 88 for the name that the article was at. So there is clearly a common name. NRHP is not a good source for common names or even correct names. As an example, I have seen buildings called companies.
2. If you believe that the common name for the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture is just the Schomburg Center then please feel free to nominate that at WP:RM.
3. While we may discourage article titles beginning with 'The', the UNESCO site seems to use this thought out. So that is likely going to be the accepted use. This one clearly would need to be discussed at WP:RM before it is renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. ok
2. i did not explain that properly
3. oh, ok

I did not know there was an official process. I thought you were just doing it on your own. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John V of Portugal

I think you boo-booed on that article's move. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't move João V of Portugal & Talk:João V of Portugal to John V of Portugal & Talk:John V of Portugal. You didn't move the page at all & merely moved the talkpage to John V of Portugal. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Now ya got it ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

CfD Discussion

A CfD which you have been previously involved in has been proposed again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_12#Category:National_Public_Radio. You are invited to participate in the current discussion.  Frank  |  talk  01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sherman Oaks Galleria

In this edit you noted that disambiguation was needed for The Daily Courier. This produced the odd literal text "The Daily Courier[[{{subst:DATE}}|{{subst:DATE}}]]^{[disambiguation needed]}." in the References section for citation #11. The substs didn't work right - just a heads up. --Lexein (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I did that with Dab Solver so I'll report the edit on the support page. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notification concerning Target for Today

You might want to chime in on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Target for Today and category churning as I see you have been involved in the cleanup from this guy's work. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's wikiproject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article moves to names that are disambiguated using parentheses, not commas

Could you take a look at Talk:Córdoba Province (Argentina)#Requested move and see what you think (as a frequent closer of move discussions)? I thought I would try to close this requested move, but it looks to be no consensus all the way down.

• It happens that you did the last move of this article that used an actual WP:RM discussion back on 15 March 2011. You moved it to the comma-separated name.
• Then it was speedy moved on 15 December by Good Olfactory to the parenthesized name.

I tried to explore the issue by asking at User talk:Andrewa#Requested move since he was a person who had joined both in the RM and in the related policy discussion. His take is that we should undo the 15 December move because it was speedy and done without discussion. Even if we take Andrewa's advice it still leaves us with a fair amount of inconsistency, according to the comment I left on his page. So we'd have to be content with having just these selected articles moved to the parenthesized form, and have it not serve as a precedent for any other geographic names. Also, any similar move requests for other parts of the world would be handled de novo, and could reach a different result. This seems like a poor outcome, since there is nothing special about South America or Argentina that seems to call for a tailored result.

In case it matters, the parenthesized form (not the comma form) is used in the Spanish, French and German Wikipedias for Córdoba Province (Argentina). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, consensus seems to be in favor of moving. It seems that the main objection is that this would be an exception. With no definitive guideline, it is likely that over time, opinions will vary and result in some bouncing around. One could argue that since the country guideline is City, Province, then any ambiguity at the province level should follow the same guideline. I'll add that Good Olfactory is generally correct in his positions. Having said that, since the last move request was unopposed, reversing the undiscussed move, when the consensus is leaning in the same direction as the last RM discussion, would seem to be the correct action. While there have been far too many RfCs on naming lately, no matter how this is closed, it probably merits an RfC on the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Argentina to see if the province names should follow the city one. At least with that RfC, there would be a widely discussed guideline in place for the next time. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Country-specific guidance seems to favor the comma format as the default. I think that you reasons for doing the move would reflect the consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So your advice is to consider that this sets a precedent for Argentina, but not for countries generally? EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi!

First, because of my reputation of being argumentative, and that argumentation sometimes being disruptive, I want you to know that I've promised to change. So although I'm asking you a question here about something you've written, rest assured that I won't badger you or anything for however you reply. I'm just curious about this.

Second, putting aside our past differences on some topics like Las Vegas (FWIW, I'm coming around to agreeing with you on its ambiguity anyway - though if I'm not mistaken I've been there before, LOL), I think we are on the same page more often than not. That's my impression anyway; would you agree?

Anyway, I wanted to ask you about a particular comment you made recently at Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Requested_move which surprised me. You wrote that you were not convinced there was a primary topic. I was wondering if you were aware that Catholic Memorial School redirected to that article for years, and while a few people in that discussion suggested that maybe it should be a dab page, there were no actual candidates mentioned to put on it. Doesn't the existence of a redirect, no dab page, and no prospect of a dab page, pretty much establish a primary topic? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Manika (singer)

Thanks for the clarification on the Las Vegas city/valley. I appreciate it.--Sanderson1228 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Churches in Connecticut & others

Hello, Vegaswikian! I've opposed the speedy renames of all these because the articles are about Parishes and not only about the church buildings, ergo the new title is not a good fit for the articles in question. I'm happy to discuss the matter wherever you like. Thanks & best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WBGR (AM)

You might recall this requested move for the WBGR (AM) article, now that the station is officially WFSI. I've now cleared up any references to the old WFSI (the FM station now known as WLZL); all mainspace and template links to WFSI now refer to the AM station in Baltimore (the former WBGR), with links referring to the old FM WFSI being updated to linking to WLZL or unlinked/removed entirely, as each instance warranted. That was the main issue with the move request; since that has been rectified, it obviously is worth revisiting. (Note as well that WFSI currently redirects to WBGR (AM) anyhow, so it's not as if any large new issues will arise; the only potential issue was a missing hatnote, and I've already dealt with that too…) I'm noting this here since you were open to revisiting the move once the template updates were dealt with; the move, of course, will put the article back in compliance with our naming conventions regarding broadcast stations, as this station changed from WBGR to WFSI nearly two months ago. Thanks, --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Iron Chef

Way back in 2007 you closed a CFD as Delete for the Iron Chef category. At the time there were 4 articles in the category, not counting the various chefs. I'm looking to recreate the category, but wanted to run it by you first as the closer. At this point in time I count (at least) 6 series, 2 episode lists, and 1 video game, and the Futurama episode for placement in the article, again not counting the chefs themselves. The close focused on creation of a nav template, but there is at present no such template on the articles. So that alternative either was never implemented, or was removed since then. At this point with this many articles, my personal thought is that a category is warranted. But this situation is also complicated by a G4 deletion of a recreation of the category in mid 2011. So one way or another I need to with the old CFD before I go about recreating the category. The first step is this note here. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've completed an initial version of an IC nav template, {{Iron Chef}}. Do you want to take a peak at it before I start dropping it on pages? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

re Texas Towers

I just want to warn you that I intend to merge everything in the articles on the individual towers back into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Holy Cross New Orleans

Hi. I was wondering why you moved the article to "Holy Cross High School (New Orleans)" when on the talk page there was more support for the alternative proposal "Holy Cross School (New Orleans)"? Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: You also broke the link to Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think we have it fixed now. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tequila (song)

Hi. What I was trying to achieve was moving the page to Tequila (instrumental) and have Tequila (song) redirect to it. Right now, it is the opposite and I cannot move the article because Tequila (instrumental) already exists as a redirect... feels like an infinite loop. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ramesses/Ramses

Just so you are aware, in case you want to monitor the situation and make sure as initial closer everything gets squared away in the end as it should: new discussion is here. A sensible way to close, BTW, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the close. I felt that it was rather reasonable and common sense. No need to create exceptions based on differing closes. If you read the above comments you will find another close I did where I did not do the move since the redirects were a mess. Once those were cleaned up the move was not a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom

A request has been filed for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. I have added your name as a party, since it is clear that you have been involved at RMs, and at pages that are within the scope of the action. Noetica^Tea? 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, sorry I didn't explain more. I had to do a lot of those notifications quickly; and I will not yet go into all issues at the ArbCom page itself, because initial submissions are tightly constrained. I am as surprised as you are, being named in a request to ArbCom; and even more at the way a systemic issue has been pounced on as an opportunity to continue a couple of relatively contained disputes. They could certainly have been settled elsewhere. A pity, because the larger concerns are of great importance and generality, as each new statement is showing. We don't want needless distractions.

Of course I have no issue with your conduct, or your closures of RMs. I have thanked you on this page, even when I disagreed with you; and I have not contested anything in your closures. It is because you are at the pointy end of the RM work, along with other admins, that I see you as involved. Parties at ArbCom want the process to be more controlled by algorithms based rigidly on policy – often on provisions that they themselves have engineered. If closing admins go beyond policy and attend to fresh lines of reasoning (such as I introduce), then they stand accused. Wrongly, I say! It is not always so overt as what happened to GTBacchus, which is a disgrace. There are other cases of unfair hounding of admins, and it does no one any good.

There is no risk at all, to anyone of good will who is a party to the ArbCom case. I do hope you will accept that role there, in support of the independent and valued work done by admins working on RMs; and in support of those who comment at them to keep the process human and realistic. (That's hard work too. See the current RM for Baden (disambiguation).)

You and I may not agree about details. But we do, I think, agree on the need for discussions conducted collegially and with an open mind. And without bullying or subtle threats, such as we have seem at RM discussions.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

TfT

I've produced a complete list of TfT's contributions at User:Oculi/testd – it gets redder by the day. Related changes ought to reveal any socks. (One so far, IMO.) Oculi (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Airport Table Voting

Voting for the Airport Linking Format has begun please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports under the Airline/Airport Table Voting column. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Résumé/CV

Hi! If CV/Resume resulted in a page move, why is it still being discussed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9#Merge_proposal) Malixsys (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States

why was this moved? the talk page cloised by you said no consensusLihaas (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep there were onkly 3 comments one of whi h said there wasnt onsensus above.Lihaas (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Can you please move this page back to the original title? [1]. An user abusively made the move, even if the result of the RFM on the talk page was "no consensus". The title from the official site of the organization http://www.sznt.ro/ is Szekler National Council KhantyMansiMagyar (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is banned editor User:Iaaasi/User:Bonaparte talking. Only the banned editor opposed on this "RFM".

Besides, their website also uses the phrases Székely National Council, Székely people, Székelyland, Székely National Assembly and Székely society... Squash Racket (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The name "Szekler National Council" is used on the front page http://www.sznt.ro and also the names Szeklerland, Szekler National Assembly SzeklersKhantyMansiMagyar (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Events

I took a stab at this and split out a parent category Category:Happenings (for events in time) from Category:Events (gatherings of people). Take a look and see what you think.

In particular, I'm not sure what to do about the name "Events" which is quite ambiguous, either at the top level or throughout the tree (e.g. Category:Events by location). – Pnm (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Memorials and cemeteries

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_30#Memorials_and_cemeteries

Closed the discussion, and placed the categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual for splitting. - jc37 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramses II

Given this, probably should move Ramses II back to original form? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Linking destinations

Has a consensus been made on the Linking destinations in airline charts on airport pages? I agree with you that it does not follow wikipedia over linking guidelines. Chaswmsday added it to Atlanta and I see there was a big fight going on so I didn't want to undo his edits on Atlanta Airport but I don't think an agreement was made. Kairportflier (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some user undid Chaswmsday's edits on Atlanta Airport but I think something has to happen because looking at the discussion this is a serious controversy. Kairportflier (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Vegaswikian,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cold War

Hello - could you please explain why you've been removing all the Cold War conflicts from the Cold War categories. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think straightening out these categories is something that should be presented to the military history WikiProject. There actually are hundreds of articles that could fall into a Cold War by Year hierarchy, and sorting it all out is going to be a big project. We're not going to fit it into one CfD discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was away for a while. Bottom line this was cleanup. The conflicts did happen during the cold war years but were they a direct result of or driven by the cold war? Categories should have objective inclusion criteria. If an event happened in 1953 say, is it listed in a cold war category or simply in another subcategory of Category:1953? How does one determine what articles are for the cold war? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cold War years

Please see this close and, if you wish, proceed accordingly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

3PO

Another "lucky" winner. 2nd admin to top my watchlist. (please see User talk:Boing! said Zebedee.)

Need a 3PO, please : ) - jc37 23:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee has commented now, so if you are not inclined or are too busy, no worries. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 20:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Mutual

Hey, I was never notified that Pacific Mutual was being speedied, which is a general courtesy extended to the creator or major contributors of an article being considered for any sort of deletion. It's pretty clear that it has a claim to notability, being an enormous company and all. Anyway, thoughts? Disavian (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Vegas Valley categories

I closed the speedy renames from LVMA to Las Vegas Valley. I would like to follow through on your split suggestion to populate Clark County categories where desirable, but I don't know enough about the geography of the area to do that. Would you mind giving that a go, and let me know if there's anything left to do after that?--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if some of this should be returned to the LV metro area categories. This is actually more common then the Clark County usage for some of the items. I guess the root cause is the rename of Category:Las Vegas metropolitan area which probably required more thought or planning. So I guess I'll try to look at these when I have time and move them one at a time, For the radio stations, do the location of translators count? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. For radio stations, I've never really understood what the logic is. There has been some categorizing by the SMSA they're in, but translators mess with the whole concept. Take your best shot, I guess.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, as you did with the others, will you be closing this Old Befuddlians nomination too?--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Southern Border (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Southern Border (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Southern Border (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Rnickel (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Electric power transmission systems

There is a discussion, which articles should be included in the category:Electric power transmission systems. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thx for the requested move ie List of districts of Maharashtra. AshLin (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And thanks too for moving CombineZ :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Southern Border (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Southern Border (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Southern Border (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TimBentley (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Churches categories

After the lack of consensus at CFD Feb 3, I suggest we have a discussion somewhere about what to do next. Would you prefer that I raise an RFC, use Category talk:Church buildings or just start here? – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Cellular Center proposed move

Is this enough proof?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know when it will be likely to gain consensus. I showed the two people who commented and they claimed the article was not proof of anything and started quoting all sorts of irrelevant Wikipedia policies, as if these had any meaning in this case. I'm not going to reopen it but I figure someone will complain sooner or later.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Car-free areas

Category:Car-free areas, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	We've crossed paths a lot with Nevada-related articles and I want to say "Thank You!" for your edits. Rosiestep (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pamela

OK, so the debate went in favour of the page move, and you implemented the move. But whose job is it now to fix all the incoming links which previously led to the redirect, and thus to the novel, and now lead to the dab page? It needs to be done. PamD 08:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

They are cleaned up over time by other editors. This is not an automated process since you can not assume that all of the incoming links should go to the old article as is the case here. Admins will generally cleanup some links like in templates but we don't have the time to go through every link. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So the RM process leaves a lot of links, which used to go direct to their destination, now dangling into a dab page. What a mess. And all because too many WP editors care more about Baywatch than English Lit. Ah well. I suppose I'll probably clean up a lot of them myself, especially if I can remember where to find the linkfixing tool to do it. I take a mild sort of WP:OWNership of that page, for obvious reasons! PamD 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Left hanging is not really a good statement. Where there are a reasonable number of links the page gets listed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. The 25 links for this page are far fewer then the 459 for Cynthia Cooper which were left after another move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fixed them all with AWB. All but one were to the novel, the last one a redlinked singer who wasn't on the dab page but is now. (Looking at Cynthia Cooper I'd have thought a better solution would have been a {{redirect|Cynthia Cooper|the accountant|Cynthia Cooper (accountant)}} hatnote on the basketball player: means that the people who want her get there immediately, the people wanting the accountant are just one click away as before, total inconvenience is reduced.) PamD 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation categories

I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong move?

Right now, instead of Template:Compact ToC, the current name is Template:Template:Compact ToC. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Vegaswikian. First general thanks for all your admin work. Second, thanks that I was careless in restarting the RM Talk:Dispute_about_Jesus'_execution_method changing ...method and new RM opened as Method of... per StAnselm's suggestion and Boneyard/History2007 second and third. Section breaks meant that missed the original ...method was still there, even though nominator had changed to Method of.... So greatly appreciated that you passed over my error without even a soft rebuke. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Area 13

Why did you move the paragraph on Area 13, which is inside the Nellis Air Force Range, back to the NTS article ? It doesn't belong there. Look at a map of the NTS. Bomazi (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you perhaps move heat to heat (physics)?

There's a long argument on the TALK page in which people would really rather complain that the technical definition of "heat" isn't what the ordinary person uses, or even what scientists used 150 years ago. But they're just complainers. The obvious "fix" (if there is one) is to do what we've done with work for heat and let the complainers do their alternate defintion accessed by the heat dab page. I'll put up a formal request. See TALK:heat. SBHarris 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RM decision at Talk:2011–12 Slovak First League

Hi, I am surprised at the decision you came to at this RM. You closed it as No Consensus, but then returned it to its previous name. No English-language sources are presented for 'Slovak First League', whereas there are such sources for Super Liga. I think that such season articles should reflect the parent article, although I see someone has now moved the parent article (wrongly, using a redirect). I'd be grateful if you could reflect further on this decision and provide some feedback to me if possible. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Old (X)" CfDs

I saw you were closing a lot of the "Old (X)" CfDs, and then you stopped. I was curious whether that was just a personal decision, or more affected by the appearance of more dissenting votes, or if Cjc13's comment here chilled your desire to do so. Not that you have to do anything, of course, but I'd just like to know if that claim was part of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

List of place names of French origin in Nebraska

Maybe seek a more democratic route through consensus before acting unilaterally in destroying a fine list like this was. • Freechildtalk 03:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Help not hinder

Hey "Vegaswikian" please know that preservation is an act of conservation-restoration. I don't know why you're removing it from articles. I think you're taking this all too personally. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad you got so frustrated trying to make sense of this topic, but it's totally understandable. Here's hoping you find other articles worth your attention. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pathogen/Human pathogen articles

Thanks for the help with the RfC at Talk:Pathogen. I produced a generic Pathogen stub article at User:Jojalozzo/Pathogen which could serve as the stub you suggest we can use when we move the current Pathogen article to Human pathogen. I proposed my version of the generic article in the discussion (3/11) and no one objected to it (though no one said anything either way - it was pretty much the last word in the discussion). If you agree that it serves our needs please go ahead withe the moves. Jojalozzo 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

Talk:Michael Quigley

 Done Marcus Qwertyus 00:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Stiff Upper Lip

Were you aware that there's a discussion ongoing about this? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment you just this minute added saying there's no primary topic? You've lost me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean there's no primary topic for the fully capitalised phrase "Stiff Upper Lip"? Or the phrase in general? The primary topic for the fully capitalised phrase is the album, I don't think there was any doubt about that, and it wasn't even discussed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic wasn't discussed because that wasn't the reason for the discussion - the proposer had an entirely different reason for the request. "Different capitalizations is a sufficient reason on its own to dab a title." - no it isn't, not according to the guideline I quoted in the discussion. Also, if there's no primary topic, why does stiff upper lip still direct to the idiom and not the dab page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the idiom is the primary topic, and nobody said it was. I had no opinion on what the primary topic was, and I never even thought about it because that wasn't what the discussion was about. Why would it be? The proposer was complaining because Stiff Upper Lip sent him to the album instead of the idiom - well, it still does, so his problem isn't solved. We didn't need to establish a primary topic because the difference in capitalisation was enough of a disambiguator already, together with the hatnotes and the dab page, as per the guideline (Red meat and Red Meat). There was no consensus in that discussion. Given that you've already moved the page and decided that there's no primary topic, the only sensible thing to do is to give the idiom page a disambiguator and send everyone to the dab page. It really wasn't necessary though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Vegaswikian! Thanks for this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

British Mandate relisting

Please could you explain why you relisted this? We've got consensus - everyone agrees! The only opposer is basically in agreement. We've been discussing this forever and getting so much consensus on such a sensitive topic is quite an achievement. To make us wait another week will let the interested editors' momentum fade even further. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I respect your judgement but I think you might have looked at this too quickly. For example, if you review the discussion you'll see (1) that at no point did anyone oppose the Mandat(ory) Palestine options (people either didn't comment or were neutral) and (2) there hasn't been proper discussion on this topic since 5/6 March. The I/P area is so heated if someone felt that the new move proposal was going in the wrong direction they would have weighed in by now. We've been waiting to make progress on this article for a loooooong time now - waiting another week seems totally unnecessary. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah - I was waiting for an admin to make the move and then i was going to start a new discussion on "Mandate or Mandatory"! Read the comment from the last editor on the page - they took the words right out of my mouth.

I think you've missed the point from the months of previous discussions on this. It's proven impossible to get consensus if you offer an A or B or C or D menu. What if other editors who don't bother to read the previous discussions come in and start suggesting other ideas for names? We'll be here for ever. By delaying you're risking the whole fragile and valuable consensus falling like a house of cards. As an experienced editor you know how easy it is for lazy fly-by editors to derail a discussion.

Please could you spend a bit more time reading the history here? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please could you explain why you think it's better to continue to debate this way vs. moving and having a new debate over Mandate vs Mandatory? I know you're not changing your mind but it will make me less frustrated if I understand! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't disagree with your analysis at all. But it didn't answer my question at all because you didn't comment on the moving+new debate option. To put it starkly, noone is revoting, so how do you expect to get consensus on three options? Look at how the debate just above in Feb/Mar went - it wasn't possible to get consensus when multiple options were on the table. I learned that we need to go step by step. Could you try to answer my question again - why you think it's better to continue to debate this way vs. moving and having a new debate over Mandate vs Mandatory? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your comments:

• "At the time of the close, there was no consensus for either of the two options." - in an area as heated as I/P, 5 vs 1 is compelling enough to conclude rough consensus
• "...bad close so that it can be moved a second time if that is where consensus winds up" - how do you define consensus here? The history of this discussion shows 100% consensus doesn't exist on this question - there are just too many options
•  "But we really only want to do moves to correct targets" - what is a correct target? Again, the history of the discussion shows there is no "correct" name here. 

You need to understand that most of the supporters here (including me) are supporting this as a middle ground so we can move on, not because it's perfect. The opposer was not involved in the previous discussions over many months so likely doesn't understand.

As you say, there is consensus that the current name doesn't work. Your rationale for not taking the "step by step" approach suggests  you think we should hold out for a perfect option which discussion history has shown doesn't exist, at the expense of keeping the article at the clearly wrong place. We just want to get on with things and stop wasting time.Oncenawhile (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vegas, could you please let me know your position here? I look at the Mandate article talk page every day and every day I think your logic is wrong. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the page move today. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnsucculent

	Thank you
	Vegaswikian, your tireless and consistently excellent contributions to Wikipedia are so very appreciated. We are very lucky to have you. Please accept this succulent as a token of gratitude. Cheers, Gobōnobo + c 20:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ref: Retiesh Deshmukh

There is a lot of confusion with this page on the number of redirects. I can only wish to highlight that there is possibility of Double redirect error on this page. As per the article in Times of India, his current name is Riteish Deshmukh and not Ritesh Deshmukh. I feel that the page should be updated with the latest name, without the bias towards actors changing their name. Moksh Juneja 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Amistad (1841) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amistad (1841). Since you had some involvement with the Amistad (1841) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Types of healthcare facilities

Category:Types of healthcare facilities, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Speed - The Ride

Yep, it's nearby the Skyvue project. Don't know that there's any connection between the two though, may be just a coincidence. There's also this blog entry from the contractors, which doesn't say anything about the wheel. Toohool (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Brownstone Canyon Archaeological District'

Hi. The article 'Brownstone Canyon Archaeological District' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://dmla.clan.lib.nv.us/DOCS/shpo/entries/clark.htm

• You added this in March 2007.
• The bot tested this link on 15 April, 17 April, 19 April and today, but it never worked.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Desert Springs Hospital for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Desert Springs Hospital is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Springs Hospital until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RM decision for Central Statistics Office (Ireland)

Vegas, thanks for closing the RM at Central Statistics Office (Ireland). Your decision was not to move it, which I think is amply justified.

Meanwhile, Kauffner unilaterally moved the article to Central Statistics Office Ireland, while the RM was open and without even announcing his move at the talkpage. Will you please reverse that, so that the properly discussed RM decision can stand without any further complicated action? Thanks. Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 07:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner did not move it while an RM was ongoing. The RM, which was about whether to move the article to simply "Central Statistics Office", concluded in December of last year – Kauffner made the move only a few days ago. Also worth noting a few more things: the result was not "not moved", it was "no consensus" – very different outcomes; Kauffner's new move does not actually conflict with the opposers' views at the last RM, as "Ireland" is still in the title and no "precision" is lost; a new RM has now been opened, so why don't you just wait for that to play out? Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got some details wrong. But still: Kauffner had no business making a unilateral move like that, when clearly the title of the article was a matter for deliberation, having seen subject to an RM! Such contempt he showed, not even notifying the community of his action at the talkpage. That's the sort of thing that causes confusion, as it did for me just now.

I still call for a speedy restoration, according to the earlier decision. We should not be imposed upon by such an egregious failure to respect due process.

In fact, I am now attempting to reverse the move myself. Why not, after all? That is much more clearly justified and in accord with the situation regarding consensus than Kauffner's disruptive action.

Noetica^Tea? 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Given how long it is since the discussion and that another discussion is now open, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to intervene. Whoever closes the discussion should give weight to the fact that this was moved knowing that the previous name was not problematic for a large number of editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Airline Lounges

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit. I'm trying not to be too involved in the last few months of WP so am just making common-sense edits without any interest in getting involved in edit wars or discussions so if you think my edit was incorrect we'll go with that. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 01:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

health cats

Is there any evidence whatsoever that might change your mind re: health and healthcare? I've cited so many sources, and yet you persist in saying things like "health law != healthcare law" - even when every definition, every legal library, every law firm I've found does not distinguish. What evidence would change your mind? --KarlB (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(added response here: User_talk:Karl.brown#health_cats) --KarlB (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

CityCenter

Vegas, what do you think of this edit justifying the USPS designation as the proper one? Well wait a minute - I guess since the parameter is "address," meaning USPS one, nobody's going to ever put "Paradise" on an envelope to mail to CC, right? hbdragon88 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it says address then that is OK. However it should not be linked since the link is to the city which is not where the property is located. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical)

I'm sort of surprised that you list UNLV as being somewhere other than in Las Vegas given that the street address for the University on the home page for the University is "University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV 89154". I could see issues that that is a Primary source, however the United States Postal Service also considers it in Las Vegas. Like UNLV, I also live in an area outside an Incorporated City where the Postal Service considers my address to be in that town. I appreciate that Paradise is fairly large, but I can't think of anywhere else that Wikipedia puts the name of a Census Designated Place as preferable to the Street Address of the location. I appreciate that you from Las Vegas and do not doubt that UNLV is part of the Paradise CDP, but IMO, that is *not* what should be used.Naraht (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I called up the UNLV Media Relations office. According to them, the preferred usage by the University is "The address of the University is Las Vegas, Nevada. The location of the University is Paradise, Nevada." (And a comment that the USPS really dislikes using Census Designated Places). Since the column is "Location", I guess Paradise makes sense.

Given that, I think the following pages should be corrected: UNLV School of Dental Medicine,List of colleges and universities in Nevada, UNLV Rebels football, and William S. Boyd School of Law

(Sam Boyd Stadium and the other sports facilities are iffy since the location in the infobox is supposed to be an address according to the infobox information)

Naraht (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I think WP:NOTTRAVEL has probably changed though. The place I ran into it is whether a National Fraternity or Sorority should have in the infobox that its headquarters location is 123 S. Pine, Indianapolis Indiana or simply Indianapolis, Indiana. I live very close to Washington DC. The only time that the question of whether something is in the District are some of the islands in the Potomac near the Virginia shore and the Pentagon. (Virginia owns *none* of the Potomac River, the boundary is the Shoreline on the VA side)Naraht (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of casinos in Wyoming

A tag has been placed on List of casinos in Wyoming, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. BO; talk 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. BO; talk 12:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OrenBochman, Vegaswikian didn't remove an AfD notice, he removed a misconceived speedy deletion tag that you placed there. Perhaps it would been better to let someone else do it, but as I agree that the tag was inapplicable it makes no real difference. If you are going to template the regulars, at least get the template right! Bencherlite^Talk 16:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite I'd like to thank you for pointing out my mistake with the Notice - I have only learned about them yesterday and this was first time I have used these. I would also like to thank you for coming now into this debate as an objective third-party so we can quickly resolve the remaining issue.

However I have checked and found that of all the admins in Wikipedia only Vegaswikian should not remove the tag - because he created that page in question. The deletion notice especially forbids it's removal - and he could easily ask a peer to do it in a way that would not appear high-handed tp a new comer such as myself. (This is not the first notice I have placed that was removed in this manner and I thought it is better to communicate on my talk page so we can reach a consensus about he problems. I also felt that the response at my talk page and at the CSD page had not been addressed - hence the notice. Regarding the above link - there is also a recommendation to template the regulars. So I had to wing it.

• I think that I am working in good faith to reach consensus - and assume that Vegaswikian is also working in good faith here - but I think this breach of protocol has circumvent coordinating about stopping possible an abusive editing issue on the page List of casinos in Ohio which is part of my little investigation of suspicions edits during patrolling using Igloo.
• However if you can recommend a course of action with netter netiquette I am receptive since I preperring for an RfA in the near future. BO; talk 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• While some of the tools may be good to identity articles that could use a looking at, they do not replace common sense and a good reading to identify vandalism. Is there any proof that the edits made by various anon accounts here are bad? I suspect, but can not prove, the these are more likely WP:COI edits. However even if that is the case, in a list file this is not a significant issue. We also have a lot of anon edits to airport destination lists and most of these are also valid albeit sometimes jumping the gun based on some restrictive rules there. What I will not do is recommend how to succeed at RfA. That's because I don't follow those discussions and have no idea what the current participants are looking for. What I can say is that when you see code in an article, it is there for a reason and you need to do some digging to see how the article is really used. Also be aware of the category structure and how techniques used in these lists allow multiple categorizations for the contents of the master list. That is desirable and necessary for improving navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative response - my questions on better netiquette was more in context of norms expected of more responsible member of the community, less about RFA advice (and was addressed to Bencherlite who suggested a netiquette problem).

I simply don't understand your last two sentences - perhaps you could clarify them or add some more context.

As you mentioned I have observed lots of anonymous edits of airports info. If they provide reliable info (which is more inline with wikipidia's interst (and it's readers) than one assumes good faith and should may accept the WP:COI.

However in the case of the Casino in Wyoming article - (I also work in Real Estate) the date from the scheduling of the future opening of casinos is not be WP:V - it is hearsay this is a basic lesson thought to new editors. For example any of the company might not get it license (as mentioned in the source) Anyhow the WP:COI in this case is clearly in the interest of the Casino operator - our readers are unlikely to interested in a casino until it is opened.

Poking in the ages history shows that the creator has been permanently blocked from work on that page, that there is competition about casion information there and other abusses. I think that my suspitions are also supported in the history. Perhaps you can make more sense of what has been going on there BO; talk 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The presence of the include/noinclude markup indicate there is more behind this article then what is displayed. The inclusion of the speedy delete template actually marked the master list for deletion and also totally messed up the formatting of that article. Now if you are questioning the contents of List of casinos in Wyoming, you need to go back to its creation. I created this when all of the state articles were created from List of casinos in the United States. I did not verify the data, I just created this in splitting the huge list into sections that could be transcluded into a unified list. I will note that Mike Cline provided sources for those casinos and I used one of those in the article. So I hope I have addressed your questions and with a source, this should not be an issue. If you think that the information for Wyoming should be deleted, you can nominate it. I would not object to a speedy but this probably needs a full discussion. If you nominate it, take care so that you only nominate this one article and not the entire master list. Also while I am far from perfect, you may want to spell check your comments. With Firefox and the addon, this is easy. It does not fix grammar but it does improve the readability of your comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Career statistics John Terry

Any reason why you removed the AfD tag from this article, replacing it with a PROD that had already been contested? Regards, GiantSnowman 09:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers, GiantSnowman 08:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of casinos in Illinois

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of casinos in Illinois, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. BO; talk 21:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of casinos in Idaho

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of casinos in Idaho requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. BO; talk 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Giving birth to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review? Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop Linking to Vegas Valley RIGHT NOW

Vegas, this [2] diff is really troubling. The fact that you changed this isn't too troubling, expect that you changed it after the requested move was ruled the exact opposite of your ambiguous claim. The consensus of the requested move was that Las Vegas explicitly is not ambiguous - if anyone but you thought it was ambiguous, then Las Vegas would still be a disambiguation page, wouldn't it? Your conduct on this topic (these consensus-defying edits, plus your repeated distortion of discussions) are unbecoming of an administrator, and I'm starting to consider taking you to WP:ANI. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

There is a discussion regarding a complaint regarding bullying from this editor User:Seb az86556 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 99.251.114.120 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_6#Category:Protected_areas_established_in_the_1930s

As you were working on cleaning this up, wanted to let you know that this is now closed. - jc37 00:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

C2D

You commented early on in the discussion on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Speedy_criterion_C2D_and_primary_topics, so I wondered if you had seen Jc37's revised proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#New_text_.28for_now.29? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Clocks, & time cats

[3] - thanks! The guy is now indef blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. I'm between two foreign trips & don't know when I'll have time to put up noms to undo all his mess. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep showed up in 'Categories possibly emptied out of process on CfD'. I may be the only person that looks at that list. But this shows its value. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Question on CfD

Hi Vegas: I've got a question about your note on three of today's CFDs—two proposed by me, and one proposed by another editor involved with WP:BIRD. I'm a CFD newbie, and I have apparently done something incorrectly. The three categories we're nominating are all genera that were abandoned recently by taxonomists, after a major reshuffle in one family of birds. We've modified all the articles to reflect the new taxonomy, and are now trying to get rid of the former categories (which are empty and will now be empty forever). Is there something else we should have done? MeegsC | Talk 19:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I did go and put banners on all the potential deletes. (I found today's nom page thru a "back door" (i.e. somebody else's link) rather than the main page. Guess I should have looked at that first! I did notify the WP:BIRD project when I did the first posting; I can't imagine anybody else would know/care about these categories... MeegsC | Talk 19:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Some things...

• User_talk:Black_Falcon#Some_things_to_consider

Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 16:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Copei

Hi, could you move Copei to COPEI, as it's an acronym, and should never have been at any other title, and certainly not with that capitalisation. (I'm asking you as filled a RM for it a while back.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories RfC

Thanks for your addition to the RfC, I agree with that disadvantage but had forgotten to add it. As for your change of "then" to "decades"; yep, my mistake, I meant to type "ten" instead of "then" but your version works just as well. Fram (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

• User:Black Falcon
• User:BrownHairedGirl
• User:The Bushranger
• User:Fayenatic london
• User:Good Olfactory
• User:Jc37
• User:Mike Selinker
• User:Timrollpickering
• User:Vegaswikian

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

June 2012

You cannot block me from editing. If you do, your stupid! Tkovack2 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Las Vegas Valley

Hey, I decided to be bold, and I guess it didn't work. I'm not AfDing, though, since AfD is explicitly not for proposing merges. I don't see any compelling argument that the two articles aren't about the same topic (aka, Las Vegas metro area, by whatever name). Comment further at Talk:Las Vegas Valley. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

UAE categories

Thought I'd let you know that I've closed the discussion here, if you want to doublecheck to ensure things are properly categorised after Cydebot gets done with it. (I'd check myself, but I'm being run off the computer for now!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this? The editor needs to be reminded that talk pages are for discussion of article improvement, not general conversation about the subject. He should also be reminded to keep his personal comments to himself. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Monty on Kenny Belaey

Hey, just to let you know that the Monty at Kenny Belaey refers to this Monty, a bicycle company. I wasn't sure how to correct the link though, as in, how to call it.

[[Monty|Monty (Bicycle company)]]

? WardMuylaert (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Neil M.

Hello,

Ive noticed you deleted a page we built, may I ask why? and what can I do to get it back and what do I need to do to make sure it stays up? Deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_Moffitt&action=edit&redlink=1

Thank you very much! (not sure if I'm doing this correctly FYI)

Dear Vegaswikian,

I'm following up on this again, can you restore the page for me without the picture so I can make the correct adjustments? Or do I need to re-create it all from scratch, please let me know asap

Thank you very much!

Amgprlv (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Amgprlv (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ok Ive done alot of work to the page, can you review it and make it go LIVE? thank you so much!!

Amgprlv (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Mayo and the Academy of Achivement

Hi Vegaswikian, I noticed that you recently placed a disambig tag on the name of "Charles Mayo" in the Academy of Achievement article. You're right, this was my oversight; I'm the principal author of the entry. The Mayo in question is Charles William Mayo; indeed, he was the only Charles Mayo alive at the time. Now, because I undertook the project on behalf of the Academy, I wasn't the one to take the draft live, and I'd prefer to follow Jimbo's stated desire that paid advocates stay out of article space. I realize these are many words to spend on such a small request, but would you mind updating the article to reflect this information? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, and for the speedy turnaround as well! WWB Too (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vegaswikian. You have new messages at Talk:Anik (satellite).
Message added 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Same article, left a msg for you there, and continued your work in eliminating the categories that don't apply to the entire article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection in Airport articles

Hi, Thanks for semi-protecting Shahjalal International Airport and Shah Amanat International Airport. They are very prone to persistent vandalism. Thanks, Happy Editing! Ahnaaf (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

CFD

Remember Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_8#Category:YouTube_video_producers?

Is Category:YouTube channels the same? Thoughts?--Otterathome (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

{{intro length}} on Orange County Government Center

Actually, didn't you mean] to use {{sections}} instead? (Don't worry; I'll fix it). Daniel Case (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankara Airport

Hello, I really don't understand why the user, who vandalized the article "Ankara Airport", blocked for 75 hours only. This person vandalize Wikipedia for a year! I wrote to the admins and they are not listening to me. He opens alot of users no body even care. I'm sorry if I sound aggressive but I'm still don't understand why he and his users don't blocked for forever.--Friends147 (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

categories

greetings, and thanks for visiting the schoolhouse, Could you please explain the minor edit (Do not include userpages in encyclopedic catagories). I've reviewed the diffs and do not understand. Also, the catagories are an area I wish to contribute to as I am seeing help tasks to improve them and I am in need of more understanding, could you direct me to where I may learn about catagories.  O = M _C ⁴  19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Event venues establishment categories changes

Why would you remove the custom-made category template {{subst:Eventestcat}} from these categories instead of updating it to supply the categories you wish to have or even discuss this with the template creator, me? __meco (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories should not be added in templates. So it is better to add these manually. Also there is no need to have every type of category using a custom template. While I have set up a bunch of trees in related areas, I'm finding that there are always slight differences. I've also seen that not matter what templates are in place, editors still refuse to use them instead adding no categories or templates or only adding the categories that they want. Finally the template as written has too many year related parameters. All you need is one, and someone can probably figure out how to eliminate that one! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I do much work on these years category hierarchies, and it is widespread practice to have the templates add categories. Furthermore, your observation about editors having problems using them, is rather contrary to my experience in doing this type of work. In my experience, users generally find it easy to assimilate the established practice by gleaning already formatted category pages for adjacent years. There will always be some minor hierarchies that look a bit ruffled and need someone to go over them. That said, in general there exist sufficient well-organized sets that asserting the problems which you do and prescribing your solution seems unjustified. __meco (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well from the ones I did, I'd say 5%-10% did not use the templates. So that is a rather significant number. Also, these categories now match the contents for a major parent and most of the children categories. May of which need creating. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian -- You've edited dates out of categories for a lot of NRHP historic district articles. But there is not some thing now where architecture categories for them are systematically removed? Could you possibly please comment at User talk:Nyttend#architecture categories? I am hoping it is not just me who would like to see useful architectural categories remain. --doncram 03:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Vegaswikian

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator . I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Proposal

Hello, Vegaswikian, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, The Glebe (Arlington, Virginia), for renaming because I don't think the current name describes the subject well. Please come join the discussion here.

Thanks again for contributing! Argos'Dad 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Are you bot? Are you? Do you talk with humans??? I want talk with people! I saw the page of my village here in Nevada there is 1 word for it.I want put more info. who can move the automatic bot and ban so i can tell u about my village?? 24.15.23.83 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Theatre for the Performing Arts at Planet Hollywood

while i don't agree with your reasoning regarding the image, it's really not that important to me, nor is it worth the bother of a belaboured drawn out discussion. however, i would ask that you be just a bit more conscientious about executing wholesale reverts that don't involve the question at hand. thanks. --emerson7 08:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Las Vegas article titles

Hi Vegaswikian. Don't you think that moves like List of tallest buildings in Las Vegas → List of tallest buildings in the Las Vegas Valley and Transportation in Las Vegas → Transportation in the Las Vegas Valley should be discussed at WP:RM first? I personally agree with your reasoning, but this is clearly a controversial topic given the heated discussion regarding the move of Las Vegas and User:Born2cycle's reversion of your move of List of people from Las Vegas. Cheers, Rai•me 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, agree with your reasoning, but just because there seems to be so much disagreement on this topic I think that the moves need to be done through WP:RM. With these two specific articles (the tallest buildings list and the transportation article), it does seem like just leaving the articles at "Las Vegas" rather than "Las Vegas Valley" may be acceptable - most "Transportation in CITYNAME" articles cover a great deal of content outside of the central city limits (i.e. Transportation in Boston, Transportation in Seattle), and the tallest building list is clear in noting that only buildings in Las Vegas (city), Spring Valley, Paradise and Winchester (and not the entire valley) are included. Cheers, Rai•me 06:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Infrastructure completed in 1913

You just added South Worcester Branch Library and removed it from Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1913.

I see that Category:Infrastructure completed in 1913 is a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1913, so at first glance, that is an entirely reasonable change.

I don't, however, understand the relationship of the two cats. "Infrastructure" is a far more general term than "Buildings and structures" -- it includes all of:

• Transportation -- Roads of all kinds, railroads, canals, coastal navigation, airports, (and bridges, tunnels, buildings, etc. for them)
• Distribution of electricity, gas, water, telephone, Internet, etc.
• Public buildings and structures of many kinds
• In fact, one could argue that it includes almost all permanent works created by humans. Some might exclude residences.

I suspect this has been debated somewhere -- if so, would you point me there. Thanks, . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories like Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1913 are growing rather large and expanding the various breakouts already in place (which I think started with bridges) is really necessary. There are already Category:Transport infrastructure and Category:Energy infrastructure and more may be needed for infrastructure. Category:Government buildings also already exists, but it is not included in Category:Infrastructure by year of completion. I have been moving categories covering lighthouses into the transport infrastructure one. Tunnels is a minor problem in that it can not go into Category:Transport infrastructure since it does include some water tunnels. So that will probably need to go directly into Category:Infrastructure, unless someone wants to split those two uses out, which may not be necessary. In looking at many categories, there do not appear to be a lot of articles on buildings for water supply, telephone, and broadband related topics. So it is not clear that these need to be created. At the time, the Category:Buildings and structures structure came into being, I'm pretty sure that no one was thinking about infrastructure, they were more focused on architecture. I had been doing a lot of the by year completion stuff. It was only after other users started making heavy use of that tree did the need to other options seem appropriate. For me, houses are not infrastructure. I don't think that office and religious buildings are. I'm not sure about retail markets, but they probably are along with warehouses and factories. As far as a discussion, I don't believe that there was one. Category splitting can happen in a planned manner or as a result of an editor seeing growth and attempting to better categorize contents. What I will say from what I have been doing and your question is, is how significant is infrastructure vs. buildings and structures? I still think that buildings and structures is the appropriate top level category, but does infrastructure become the vast majority of the articles? Oh, I have been using Infrastructure as a guide when I move articles into that area of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Transport infrastructure by year of completion categories

Hi Vegaswikian. I've created a few more of the Transport infrastructure by year of completion categories which you started and was thinking about ways of populating them. One possibility is to ask a bot to add each category Category:Tunnels completed in XXXX to Category:Transport infrastructure completed in XXXX. The same could be done for airports, bridges, lighthouses, railway lines, railway stations and roads, all of which have "by year of establishment/opening/completion" categories. Question a) do you think that makes sense? Question b) can you think of other categories of this type which should be added as transport infrastructure? Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point about tunnels. I'll leave them aside for now (but maybe somewhere down the road, these categories should be split since the connection between Liffey Service Tunnel and Halsnøy Tunnel is a little tenuous). As for the railway stations, I can't verify this but I think they were always purpose built since the constraints on the interior architecture make it very difficult to repurpose an existing building into a station. Warehouses will have to be checked manually since many don't fit the bill. Another cat which should be explored is Category:Canals and the subcategory Category:Locks (water transport)‎ which are not currently categorized by year. Anyway, I'll put in a request at WP:BOTREQ for the 20th and 21st century and go from there. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

establishments of populated places pre-1500

Hi Vegaswikian. There's an old convention detailed at Template:Settleestcat about categorization of pre-1500 human settlements by year of foundation. Basically we only worry about decade in the 1300-1499 interval, century in the 1000BC-1299 interval and millenium before that. Accordingly I've reverted some of your recent changes. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mostly the empty categories resulted from changes in the German location template. (Changes that have been temporarily reverted until a technical problem is resolved) Now I agree that they were emptied without going through CfD but they were emptied to match a five year old convention that is adopted quite consistently. These cases typically don't go through CfD, just like emptying Category:Politicians of France in favor of Category:French politicians would be regarded as uncontroversial housekeeping and taking it to CfD would be regarded as uselessly clogging the system. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Move 'The Verge (website)' to 'The Verge'

You moved 'The Verge' to 'The Verge (website)' on 9th November 2011 but based on pageview data 'The Verge (website)' is now by far the main meaning for the term 'The Verge' and should be put back - see http://stats.grok.se/en/201208/the%20verge%20(website) . There is currently a redirect on this page to 'Verge' but as you will see none of the listed terms are the main meaning for people looking for 'The Verge'. Thanks. Douusskamika (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Willingness to take photos?

Hi Vegaswikian. Just wondered if you (assuming the Vegas in your name is NV) might be willing to snap a few photos around Sin City that could be used in various wiki's? In particular, IMHO photos of the exterior of Counts Kustoms, Gold & Silver Pawn, and Rick's Restoration would be cool additions to the Counting Cars, Pawn Stars and American Restoration articles respectively. Any photos you might be able to get of the shows stars too. Just a thought anyway. Best regards and have a great Wiki kind of day. Sector001 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

year categories in historic districts

Hi Vegaswikian -- I notice, of course, some of your many edits removing year-categories that come into new NRHP historic district articles, and I don't disagree with their removal as categories, as the meaning of the year from NRIS database is not clear. (It is also not completely clear for NRHP places that are individual buildings, but that is another discussion). However your typical edit summary, as in your edit to the Ayden Historic District article just now, doesn't make sense, and I kinda wish you would stop making that. It is confusing, probably, to many new and future editors.

Your edit summary there, which i think is typical, includes "Historic districts are not completed in one year. Use categories on the individual articles for the year completed." I think what you are believing is that there should be separate articles created, or just redirects, for the contributing buildings in a historic district, and that each of those separate articles or redirects can have a precise year built category that applies for that building. However, if that is what you think, I think no one understands that you want it to happen, and it is simply not going to happen. NRHP editors are not doing that, and will not. It comes across to me as if you are either calling for something to be done, or you are trying to be polite and suggest there is a remedy to what you are doing. I think it best for you to change your edit summary to just be direct, that you don't believe year categories make sense for historic districts.

I'll myself try to catch and remove year categories in historic district articles that i start, too. I don't promise to be perfect in that, but I'll try. In general I don't pay much attention to categories and basically feel i don't understand their use in wikipedia. Especially not for "establishments". --doncram 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I started using that longer wording in edit summaries, as I recall, after there was some confusion about the simple comment. So I guess both approaches are problematic. And you are correct, the dates for buildings should be on the article, if it exists, or on a redirect, if that exists. Also the data can not be removed from all district articles since the text for some implies or clearly states that they were completed in a single year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Got your reply at my Talk page. Copied it in just above this, and I will reply and follow here, if that's ok. I dunno, maybe you could provide some useful explanation about categories in the wp:NRHPFAQ in the form of a question and answer or two. I do see that Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1890 is truly not the appropriate category for that Ayden Historic District, which has 325 buildings and structures, certainly not all completed then.

Again, Category:Buildings and structures completed in YEAR is probably not the correct category for many NRIS individual listings, too, but it really really does not make sense for most districts.

What are reasonable options for meaningful year categories for districts? Year "established"? Year of first building completed? I wonder if you could point to some valid examples, where the articles and sources support the use of other types of year category. --doncram 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For a specific example, consider State Normal School at Valley City Historic District. Currently has the Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1892 category, which you would remove. According to the NRHP nomination document, the HD involves 11 buildings, first one built in 1892, but various later dates, up to some construction happening as late as 1973. The NRHP application is for recognition of a date range of significance from 1892-1946. The narrative mentions many dates, but defends the beginning and end dates for that 1892-1946 range. That info from the NRHP nomination document. I think the NRIS database includes at least 1892;1903;1930 as significant dates (visible when you search for "State Normal" at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreghome.do?searchtype=natreghome. I dunno, wouldn't it be better to have some categories for beginning and/or ending years of historical significance, say? Or "establishment" of some kind? --doncram 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The districts are established when they get the NRHP designation. Choosing established when the NRHP designation is granted is not really defining and should not be categorized as such. With some exceptions, like for entire towns, I think there are a few of these, it would be really hard to associate these with established since that equates to something specific happening. As you noted, most districts contain buildings and structures that were completed over multiple years. Having said that, not every article needs to be in every type of category tree. So not placing the districts directly in the Category:Buildings and structures tree is acceptable. I think that the existing NRHP categories are ample categorization for these. When I get some time, I'll try to add some suggested categories to the page you referenced above. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable thoughts, thanks.

It is a fact though, that one building, the first building, at the State Normal school was built in 1892, so it seems to me that Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1892 could be acceptable, if you interpreted it as meaning "at least one building in this article was completed in 1892". Obviously if you interpret as meaning "all completed by", it is wrong. But if you are trying to help readers find their way to buildings documented to have been completed in 1892, it is a help to have this article in that category.

Relatedly, there's a suggestion that establishment year categories should be started for all NRHP articles, discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Relevant categories?. Could you please comment there? Your view, given your experience with all this, would be helpful to have on the record there. --doncram 20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I answered part of this on the talk page you mentioned. For categories, the article must support inclusion and the category should be defining for the article. In this case, since the district did not exist, by definition it was not defining, at least in my mind. Further most districts are notable because of a collection of buildings and not a single one. So the district is really notable for the collection of these buildings and not really one specific one. You could argue that when you have a district that is a major building and some outlying structures, the date for the main building would apply, but then it is that one building that should have the date associated with it and not the district. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting there. I appreciate your point there about the NRHP listing year not being a defining characteristic.

Could you also please consider commenting at new discussion item, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Commons category and automatic categorization? I'm not clear there, on what Multichill is asking for, with respect to new categories, maybe now redlink ones, and I wonder if this is something that you'd a) understand and b) be able to address more easily than others. Thanks in advance for your considering. --doncram 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bloomin' Brands

I see your revision and comment that there are but there are only a handful of key people, but all those I listed are listed as executives on there website.Sk8terguy27 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Pristava House: layout

Hi, Vegaswikian! Thanks for adding a more specific category to Pristava House. Please keep in mind that per WP:FOOTERS, the coordinates should follow navigation templates in the foot of the article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that change. Most articles have these after the external links. I think that is where the bots have been placing them. I'll try to remember this in the future. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 3 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 19:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Casinos by year category

Hi Vegawikian. You have started to construct two parallel schemes for categorizing casinos: Category:Casinos by year of completion and Category:Casinos by year of establishment. It seems like a bad idea to have systems so close that they are bound to cause confusion and would force many casinos to be categorized in what would seem to most a redundant way. I might be wrong but I seem to remember something like that was discussed about shopping malls and the argument (which I find compelling in the present case) is that the establishment is usually a formal opening at a specific date and is well documented whereas the date of completion is harder to verify and more open to debate (does the paint in the bathroom have to be dry?) So I favor keeping Category:Casinos by year of establishment. Obviously I can take this to CfD but if I'm not mistaken you created all of these categories so if you agree, you can also speedy delete the "year of completion" branch. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Casinos by year of completion

Category:Casinos by year of completion, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture needed

Thanks for your message on my wall. Is there a better way to divide that category into more manageable subcategories? Katya (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Actresses

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

City Colleges of Chicago

Hi! I looked at Jeremy Gantz's edits. He had reverted yours there (see his edit summary) - I went ahead, reverted his edits, and began rebuilding the article. I think he needs guidance on how to write an encyclopedia article WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Radio_personalities. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Alteration

Hi Vegaswikian. Thanks for tagging The Alteration. I tried disambiguating Candia, failed and quickly came to the conclusion that the article has numerous issues. I don't think we can disambiguate Candia. Amis's book mentions it only once. Its possible meaning appears to be the wiki editor's own speculation. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

Hi. In this edit, you changed "References" to "Nptes". This looks like some kind of script? Probably needs a tweak. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template:Future spaceflights

Hi. The source is in the article, Cygnus 1, but it is older than your source, so it's probably outdated.--Cattus ^talk 08:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the help box is a good idea.--Cattus ^talk 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	hello :) Latristelagrima (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Petroleum/Oil categories

• See also: User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Petroleum.2FOil_categories

Hi, Vegaswikian. After looking category:Petroleum and its subcategories, I think there are some issues. Probably the overall tree of subcategories needs some consideration. Particularly, division between Category:Petroleum engineering and Category:Petroleum technology needs a clear separation criteria. Second issue is that category:Petroleum and the higher categories are overloaded with entries which need more specific categories. The third issue is that if the higher categories are using "Petroleum" in their name, a lot of subcategories and category trees are using the word "Oil". Maybe this is not a problem but a clear understanding is needed. I believe that you may have some ideas what to do with these issues. Beagel (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, after taking a glance I can say I'm not sure. While petroleum may be accurate does it reflect the common name? Most uses I read for for drilling and tar sands say oil or oil drilling. But oil is ambiguous. So which term adds the most clarity? Your point about the lower categories using mainly oil is valid. But oil, without qualification, is ambiguous while being the common name. The fact that the public may not be aware of other oils products being transported does not fix the ambiguities. When I created Category:Refined oil product pipelines it was to cleanup a bit and I think is still unambiguous. But I was not thinking about the other oil products. However if crude oil is the only one refined, then that category should be OK. Maybe a trial balloon could be to rename Category:Oil pipeline companies‎, Category:Oil pipelines by country‎ and Category:Oil pipelines by continent‎ to Category:Crude oil pipe...‎? However that would leave the parent name in limbo since petroleum and crude oil would both be wrong unless you consider refined crude oil products as crude oil. Or you could also rename the refined category to include crude.

As an aside, why is HCNG dispenser in any petroleum category?

I do see your concern with Category:Petroleum engineering and Category:Petroleum technology. However that could be fixed with a cleanup once the delineation between the two is clear. I guess my question there is, are all technologies the result of engineering? If so, does that make the distinction muddier?

So the bottom line here may be to start a cleanup at the bottom and let the top resolve itself based on the children categories. Announce your intentions in the project talk and continue working unless someone there raises reasonable objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think that Petroleum/oil issue is not the most relevant at the moment. The only case I see it may become relevant is Petroleum industry and Petroleum industry in foo categories versus Oil industry and Oil industry in foo categories. At the moment we have already both versions in use. I don't think we should rename Oil pipelines categories at the moment (not saying this can't be the case in the future). I also agree that in theory the distinction between Category:Petroleum engineering and Category:Petroleum technology is clear but I see that in practice it may be somehow complicated. I fully agree that HCNG dispenser was incorrectly categorized and I fixed it by recategorizing that article. Beagel (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the "by country" categories, more participation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 10#Petroleum industry categories would be welcome. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox casino/Template:Infobox resort

Template:Infobox casino/Template:Infobox resort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Please reenforce the outcome of a move request you closed: Talk:Jessica (entertainer)#Requested move. The page Yoona was moved without discussion. I've already posted about it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Yoona. I also listed several related cases there. Moscow Connection (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand

Category:Tobacco smoking in New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Red links

Hi Vegaswikian, I applaud you work in tidying up disambiguation links, but I wonder what you intended for isochronous. Are you planning to create an article Isochronous (horology)? If so, could you please create it before linking to it? If your intention was just disambiguation, then it is not necessary in this case since the second paragraph is about the horological interpretation. Best wishes, and welcome back from your Wikibreak. Dbfirs 08:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Perennial candidates

Could you restore this? I think having the category back would aid in navigability between articles like Vermin Supreme and Jimmy McMillan. There also didn't seem to be a lot of consensus; the only people participating in the discussion were the nominator and the closer (you) pbp 15:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the nom/discussion, but seems like a useful cat to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to 2008 discussion. Seems like exactly the type of category we want to keep deleted, to me. No clear objective criteria for whether some is a "perennial candidate" or not - and a perennial candidate for what, in any case? Would Winston Churchill? He was a candidate for election to Parliament on more than a dozen occasions. Or would the category only be for people who try but fail? Bencherlite^Talk 17:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it would only apply to those who try but fail. That is, they are known for being candidates, over and over. People who get elected are not especially known for being candidates. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Somebody like George Wallace perhaps? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it was deleted over 4 years ago, I see no justification for me to restore it. Now, if you think that it should be a valid category, you can create it again. But you need to understand that this could be deleted again. Given that the name is completely ambiguous for both words in proposed title, deletion is very likely. But that is a call you are free to make and a case you may need to defend. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So are you advising me to just re-create the thing and see what happens, rather than DRV it? pbp 19:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that any DRV would end up as "relist at CFD" rather than any conclusion that makes it immune from renomination at CFD, and any recreation will end up at CFD for a new discussion, so you might as well save the DRV step... Bencherlite^Talk 19:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If no one has complained in over 4 years, and if no one objected in the discussion, what would the grounds be to overturn? DRV is not for adding new information. It is for contesting the close as not being supported by policy and the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in Cox's Bazar Airport

The article Cox's Bazar Airport, has been twice vandalised in the last 24 hours. The destination list of airlines, are being stuffed with random destinations, of airlines which don't fly to the airport. As you have already semi-protected Shah Amanat International Airport and Shahjalal International Airport, it would be nice if you would protect Cox's Bazar Airport too.

Thanks!

Ahnaaf (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

HD buildings of a certain year, Barnum/Palliser Historic District example

I keep occasionally noticing your edits like this one with your standard edit summary "Historic districts are not completed in one year. Use categories on the individual articles for the year completed.". It continues to jar me that you refer to "the individual articles". There is no need for individual articles, they don't exist, neither you nor anyone is advocating that a separate article for each building covered in an HD should be created. This seems wrong for you to be filling the histories of many HD articles with edit comments that will not make sense to anyone.

And,about the Barnum/Palliser Historic District in particular, removing the category Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1830 seems wrong. There is a building in the district completed in c.1830. You could have a valid complaint that the article didn't specifically describe the 1830 building, and call for that specific description to be added by a talk page comment or by some tag on the article, but I think it is not proper to delete the category when the NRIS database gives us the info that it is probably an accurate category to use. Call for support, yes, delete the info, no. Anyhow, for this one I added specific description, and restored the category and added another, Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1878. It seems proper to have both categories and perhaps more attached to the HD article. --doncram 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion in one place, please? You replied at my talk page:

You might want to spend some time reading about categorization. The problem is that the DISTRICT was not built in that year. It is rather simple. While some buildings in the district may have been built in that year, that is not a valid reason to categorize the district. I know you do not like my edit comment. However if you would not miscategroize articles, I would not be editing those needing an edit comment. Also I'm seeing a new type of miscategorization in some articles. I saw this in a by state category. It was for a bank which was categorized in banks of some state AND commercial buildings of some state. The commercial category needs to be removed from the article, and the category banks should be in the commercial category not all of the articles. Finally someone needs to take a hard look at how NRHP is categorizing articles. I have seen numerous cases where a, lets say, office building is listed. However since it was recently converted to residential use, it is in an NRHP category as residential and not office which is probably the better choice. I would rather move on to other things but the NRHP articles always seem to placed in very imprecise categories requiring someone else to put them in the correct categories. Bottom line, the edits are correct and in the example you provided you can have kept me out of editing the article if correct categories were placed on the article when you created it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please point me to what I should read on categorization. It's my impression that an article can cover several items, and be included in categories that describe each such item. Please do correct me if my impression is wrong. And, you need to educate others besides myself, such as editor Elkman whose NRHP article generator suggests categories like these, which are then used by many editors, as my impression seems to be shared by many others. It seems like a service to readers who are looking for buildings completed in 1878 (indeed a rare type of specialized reader) that they should be able to find their way to buildings completed in 1878. I cannot fathom how you would want to deny them access, but it seems you are.

You're making the same misleading edit at articles created by other editors too, for example at Bergy Bridge Historic District and Centre Market Square Historic District in your recent history, which i never touched until I just visited and reverted your recent edits at those, too. You don't mean to advocate that these HD's should be split into dozens of separate articles, are you? And, do you have the edit summary composed in some comment that you apply? You are not writing it out each time, right? Why not change the comment. You know it is wrong to suggest that the HDs should be split, right? What do you mean by it? It would reduce the scope of what needs to be discussed with others, if you would address this part of disagreement / miscommunication / whatever is going on here. I hope you don't mean to suggest that you are going to "punish" me by your applying such edits to many articles, which you know are misleading or confusing, because I have not done something you want. I do stand ready to help frame a useful discussion about categories for NRHP HD articles. It would be easier if we could reduce the scope to something worth others' attention. --doncram 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Elkman agrees that his generator is not perfect and was not willing to take the time to make the major improvements that would be needed to improve categorization. Yes, articles can have multiple categories, but they need to be supported by defining uses in the article. A simple mention in an article is generally suppose to be categorized. I have found maybe 5 HD articles in the last year where they appear to have been completed in a single year and those were left alone. If the buildings that are mentioned are not notable enough for an article, then categorizing them in the HD article is not appropriate. If they are notable, then create a redirect if you don't have time to write the article now. There is a good template to use one these redirect in addition to the categories, {{R with possibilities}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand several things you just wrote. Okay, about "Yes, articles can have multiple categories, but they need to be supported by defining uses in the article", good, that is a start, thanks. About "A simple mention in an article is generally suppose to be categorized", I don't understand. Could you expand on what you mean to convey? I could accept that you could have the perspective that many NRHP HD articles should have more development, more "verifiability" per wp:Categorization, but there are means for you to call for that, specifically "{{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {{Category relevant?}}", per wp:Categorization.

I don't understand what you mean by, or i think i disagree with, your statement "If the buildings that are mentioned are not notable enough for an article, then categorizing them in the HD article is not appropriate." The date of completion of the oldest building in a historic district seems to be a defining characteristic of many HDs. An HD article that provides verification of completion of its oldest building in 1878, should be allowed to have the buildings completed in 1878 category, it seems to me. Do you disagree?

I'm gonna return to this again and again, if necessary. The period of significance of a historic district is one of the upfront defining characteristics of NRHP districts; the beginning and ending dates are salient elements of an NRHP HD application which must be supported, and the date range is highlighted in the NRHP nom doc, in the NRIS system reports, and in numerous mirror websites like www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. Given the huge amount of effort put in by you and others to categorize things by year, I think these years, or at least the beginning years, oughta be used in wikipedia categorization somehow. --doncram 13:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By your statement "If they are notable, then create a redirect if you don't have time to write the article now", I wish you would please agree to stop suggesting that. My first reaction is that this is exasperating. That is not going to happen, neither the creation of a separate article nor the creation of a temporary redirect which could hold the category that you want. It is wrong for you to suggest that separate articles should be created. I'm sorry, that seems ludicrous to consider. Are you serious? Do you seriously want to suggest to NRHP editors that they should do either? I guess you may be thinking this is plausible (are you really? Have you ever done this for NRHP articles, or seen anyone else do it?). If you do think it is plausible, would you agree to some process to collect some input from experienced NRHP editors about whether anyone accepts that advice. And if the consensus is that such advice is mis-placed, that you would stop advising indeterminate future editors of all types, that such should be done? --doncram 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have created a few NRHP articles. I did so without using the generator and these wound up with the correct categories. They were researched from multiple sources and actually had working links to those sources. As for articles and categorization. Either you put categories in the correct articles or you don't use them. If that means you create redirects, that is the best choice. I know you spend most of your time on NRHP stuff and I'm glad we are getting a bunch of stuff. But personally I think that time needs to be spent on a bunch of those stubs that say nothing! I don't know how many buildings I have seen where the purpose of the building is not even mentioned in the article. Maybe a few words about the style it was designed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with you about "Also I'm seeing a new type of miscategorization in some articles. I saw this in a by state category. It was for a bank which was categorized in banks of some state AND commercial buildings of some state. The commercial category needs to be removed from the article, and the category banks should be in the commercial category not all of the articles." yes, that makes sense.

About "Finally someone needs to take a hard look at how NRHP is categorizing articles. I have seen numerous cases where a, lets say, office building is listed. However since it was recently converted to residential use, it is in an NRHP category as residential and not office which is probably the better choice.", actually I would think the building is probably wikipedia-notable and NRHP-listed for its historic use as an office building, and/or for its architecture as an office building, so it should be categorized as such. This is similar to NRHP's naming convention: in the manual for NRHP nominations ( I think linked from article National Register of Historic Places, there is guidance that the suggested name for a place should be its historical, long-running name, not some recent rename. What it was notable for, should govern, i think. But I don't know how general is your comment, about where this reasoning is being applied systematically, or who to bring into a discussion about how to address this subissue. --doncram 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just been trying to sub categorize the building by year categories. I see what I think are issues with the NRHP categories in doing this, but since I don't know how that structure is being used, I have just left it alone. I think that you and I are on the same page here that these are not categorized correctly for the historical use. Also on naming, your position is not entirely correct. The article name should be the common name. However, as I recall, the NRHP guidelines say that the infobox should have the correct name from the NRHP listing even if that differs from the article name. When there is a conversion in use, the new name may well be the common name which should be used on the article. I will say that many editors seem to think that any new name must be applied when a building changes names. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

About the common names, i fully understand and agree that articles should be at common names. I was just sharing to you about the NRHP's own internal naming guideline, which is different than wikipedia's, as an analogy. I also note that many editors seem to think a new announcement of name must be implemented blindly, whether that changes the common name in practice or in the weight of historical use, or not.

I also think we mostly have the same values here and would generally agree on what matters, though we are not completely clear in the details of what should be done--you acknowledge some lack of familiarity in the NRHP info; i acknowledge some lack of clarity on how categorizing in wikipedia should be done. You should know that I intend to work on all remaining HD articles, and that convincing Elkman to change categorizing in his system is not necessary. So could you and i work together to figure out what the NRHP HD categories really should be, for a good set of examples, and then you and I, or maybe mostly I, would implement that widely? --doncram 13:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One solution was suggested on an NRHP talk page, location escapes me could have been at CfD, over a year ago. That option was to use 'established in' to fix this concern. However it was determined that the year the district was established was not defining. There is no reason why every building related article needs to be in a building year category. I agree with you that for much of this we are agree. I'm just confused by your need to categorize districts by year built or completed or whatever. As I said, this can only be done for a handful of districts. For the rest, clearly a year label is not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Utah HD categories

In particular, how about we review the historic districts in the state of Utah, where NRHP nomination documents are available online, and i have been developing recently (nearly done starting all of List of RHPs in Utah County), and where i plan to complete out all the HD articles state-wide. Would you agree to consider what the categories should be, given good information, in these cases? For example, Pleasant Grove Historic District, where you applied your standard edit, and where the article did not specifically in its contents support the "buildings completed in 1853" category. I dunno, should there be two new categories, for beginning and ending date of period of significance of a historic district? The beginning and ending dates of significance are defining characteristics of NRHP districts; they are salient facts that are reported in the NRHP nom docs and in the NRIS system. It happens that often the beginning date is a date of completion of the earliest building, but that is not always the meaning of the beginning date. We could both look at the linked, complete NRHP nomination document. --doncram 13:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The Utah county HDs, to be discussed if you are willing:

• American Fork Historic District --nom doc not available online so hard to consider properly
• Christeele Acres Historic District -- all or largely built as one development in 1943, Category:Houses completed in 1943 applied, seems accurate but not properly descriptive of significance
• Lehi Main Street Historic District
• Payson Historic District
• Pleasant Grove Historic District --seems to doncram to merit an 1853 year category of some type
• Provo Downtown Historic District
• Provo East Central Historic District
• Springville Historic District
• Timpanogos Cave Historic District
• Upper American Fork Hydroelectric Power Plant Historic District
• Brigham Young University Lower Campus / Brigham Young Academy / Provo City Library --linked article is not properly developed to cover the historic district, hard to discuss

--doncram 14:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, there were suppose to be changes to the NRHP template and the generator, to address the fact that the period of significance in the database does not equate to built. The root cause of this issue is that quite often the the database information is marginal at best. Placing an article in a category that is not correct is simply wrong. A district is not a building, so unless all of the building are of one type and and one built in year, it is hard to justify a by year category. I will admit that there are some cases where this happens or, even with different types, they are all finished in a single year. But when you have a district that covers 150 acres, that is simply not likely. I'm not concentrating on the NRHP articles. I'm going by year and many of these articles require a longer read to understand what is intended. You even need to find working links for some to get facts. I have about 7,000 18th-century articles to look at. I really think that it you could clean up the NRHP ones, I would have less to do and I could spend more time on those buildings that belong in these categories but are not yet there. I think that this is a bigger problem, but takes more work. As to your examples, I have explained how simple this really is, and I don't have to time to research each of your examples. I did look at Provo Downtown Historic District. It consists of 43 contributing buildings built over 40 years (the article does not make clear if the buildings built over the 90 years mentioned are contributing buildings). Clearly, as reflected in the current categorization, it can not be placed in a by year category. The article only discusses, as far as I can see, one building in the district. It also spends also as much space on the Tintic Mining District which is someplace else. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit to the article Jizya

Can you explain exactly why you've edited the article Jizya at the part I actually added??!! Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with wiki terms, that's why I requested from you to explain what it is exactly I did wrong, since

some of edited part I have personally added them. Thanks.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

I hate to make work for you, but as an admin could you review what I have done here, noting the protest here. I will accept your view. Thank you, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I knew I was not participating since it would be confusing and I was right. After reading the first discussion, there appeared to be support for a rename, but not as proposed. So the follow on discussion seems to be a logical move in my mind. So I'll reopen that discussion. For the record, I don't like either of the two leading contenders but I see the problem with the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The notoriuos wiki troll ( Iaaasi) returned

Hello!

The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012 He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule. Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll? Thank you! Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think that this is really a sock puppet, then you need to read this on how to deal with the problem. Note the section on handling suspected sock puppets and how to report them. Most likely a checkuser will be needed and the ability to use this tool is severely limited. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kanekapolei

Could you merge the histories of User:KAVEBEAR/Kānekapōlei and Kanekapolei and move the merged article to Kānekapōlei?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Central State Museum of Kazakhstan

Hi Vegaswikian -- I applaud your efforts to clean out the Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1985 and similar categories. However, I undid the change of Central State Museum of Kazakhstan to Category:Infrastructure completed in 1985. Museums are not infrastructure. If it's needed to clean up the category structure, perhaps a new category structure of Culture-related buildings, including theater, religion, museums, music venues. ("Cultural infrastructure", perhaps.) --Lquilter (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion I consider these to be a part of infrastructure and as cultural, sports and recreational infrastructure specifically. However your suggestion for Category:Cultural infrastructure under infrastructure does make sense. I was reluctant to create subcategories for museums since there might be too few. However adding the sports venues subcategory seems like the right way. So going forward, I think I start populating that tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, because most folks think of "infrastructure" as not including the cultural institutions. So having a dedicated tree that specifically makes that link would help make that connect. --Lquilter (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD Renomination

An article that you have edited has been nominated for AFD, and you may wish to comment . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bell Building

Hi - this edit suggests you were trying to update a "district", not a nhl. It is effectively one giant complex building. dm (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and happy holidays! dm (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Snoozlepet (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dutch Reformed churches

Category:Dutch Reformed churches, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFHutson (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Student house subcategorization

Hello,
I undid your edit because the building in question is not a residential building. I looked in Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1870, and none of the subcategories seems to suit this building. The Old Student house is AFAIK mostly an entertainment venue (ballroom) and a café. There are definitely no residential quarters in the building. Category:School buildings completed in 1870‎ comes close, but the house is owned by the university's student union—not by the university—which means that there are no university lectures or other education there, and anyway universities are rarely categorized as "schools". Today it serves mostly a commercial purpose, but more importantly it was not build as a commercial venue to my knowledge, which excludes Category:Commercial buildings completed in 1870. Maybe it's best just to leave this one in the broad category, unless you can come up with a better subcategory? --hydrox (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What was its original purpose? I classify based on what the article says about its past. Sometimes that use is unclear. I agree that at the present time, higher education facilities are classified as school buildings. That may not be the best, but it is accurate but likely somewhat unclear. The best solution might be to create the tree for Category:College and University buildings completed in yyyy. There are probably sufficient articles to support this since I believe that most of these buildings are not currently in a by year category. Feel free to start creating that tree as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Original purpose is an entertainment venue for university students. If it needs to be in a subcategory, I put it into the "school" category for now. --hydrox (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi there, as per WP:CONS I'm here to kindly ask you to revert the non consensual moving of the Belgian Defence page, restoring everything to its previous consensual name: Belgian Army. The Belgian Armed Forces were disbanded in 2002 by Royal Decree and the once previously single independent armed forces were merged into the Army as 4 different "components" (branches) just like People's Liberation Army or the Yugoslav People's Army. Even if almost 11 years are passed since that decision for someone is hard to understand. Thank you in advance and Happy new year!!! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Vegas rules

keep it up..good stuff Sal Calyso (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)