User talk:Koavf/Archive050
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Koavf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
 User talk:Koavf archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:Canada Thailand Locator.png
A tag has been placed on File talk:Canada Thailand Locator.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Paul_012 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:Denmark Thailand Locator.png
A tag has been placed on File talk:Denmark Thailand Locator.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Paul_012 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:Thai-stairs.jpg
A tag has been placed on File talk:Thai-stairs.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Paul_012 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Stalker hoax
The "Stalker" story was picked up by some outlets, but none of the reports confirmed the veracity of the "leak" - they only reported that someone was claiming to have found a CD in Sufjan's trash. Also, Stereogum interviewed the leaker (http://www.stereogum.com/1886632/an-interview-with-the-guy-who-says-he-found-an-unreleased-album-in-sufjan-stevens-dumpster/franchises/interview/), Mark Rebillet, who was found to have been involved in other possible hoaxes (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=17383). In short, no one reported on the actual album being real, only on the fact that someone was claiming it was - and this person provided no evidence whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.133.99 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:WPBF
Hi there! I've been doing a little work to improve WikiProject Bahá'í Faith after a bit of a hiatus, and wanted to see if you had any input on how to go about it. I've cleaned up the layout a little, added a section on finding reliable sources for articles on the Bahá'í Faith, and set up new article search. I also want to go over the assessment page to make it even clearer where different articles should fall on the importance scale. Since you've contributed significantly to that page, I was hoping you might have some suggestions. If you have the chance, please take a look at what I've been doing and let me know if you have any feedback! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Dragfyre: I noticed, thank you so much. I don't have anything at the moment because I'm in the middle of a handful of wiki-commitments and real life ones but I'm putting this on my calendar to get back with you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Koavf. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
tip of advice
When you're PRODing album pages and a band has a page, it's better not to PROD them and instead redirect them to the band's page, or in the case of for example Sabaton, the discography page. Please keep that in mind in case a subject ever receives significant coverage in the future. Thanks for your cooperation. ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @UltraDark: I have before for some album articles but others suggested that I only do that for articles where the target has substantial info on the album release. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Most of the time, unnotable album articles are generally redirected to the band or discography page. Since the band in question, Sabaton has a discography page, it is easier to redirect the album pages over to it's discography page where all of the chart information is listed. I've witnessed quite a plenty amount of cases that I am having a hard time naming. I'm just a normal guy trying to be friendly and help out. Nothin' wrong with that, right? ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @UltraDark: But recraeating redirected pages is why they were in the unreviewed queue in the first place. This user is just going back and forth on changing these from redirects. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: If the people engage in edit wars, then report them. The redirects being semi-protected might help.--ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @UltraDark: But recraeating redirected pages is why they were in the unreviewed queue in the first place. This user is just going back and forth on changing these from redirects. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Most of the time, unnotable album articles are generally redirected to the band or discography page. Since the band in question, Sabaton has a discography page, it is easier to redirect the album pages over to it's discography page where all of the chart information is listed. I've witnessed quite a plenty amount of cases that I am having a hard time naming. I'm just a normal guy trying to be friendly and help out. Nothin' wrong with that, right? ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Anthroponymy tagging
I only just noticed the query on the project talk page. I personally would be grateful if you finished tagging the remaining articles. There will be some errors and false positives but I'm quite happy to go through them manually and fix things. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Xezbeth: Thanks! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools
Hi there, thank you for the message you left on my talk page. Please refer to my comments which have now been added to the page's talk page. The page is being developed over the coming week so your patience would be much appreciated. Thanks TheStudiousDentist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you
A. Here.
B. Not here?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: Here now. What's up? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- By "here" I mean Montreal...
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough: I'm in your heart and I'm only one international border away--I'd say that's not too bad. Have fun without me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- By "here" I mean Montreal...
Deletion discussion about Rome International Film Festival (RIFF)
Hello, Koavf,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Rome International Film Festival (RIFF) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome International Film Festival (RIFF) .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
WikiProject tagging on talk pages
Koavf, I just wanted to say thank you for all the amazing work you are doing going through every non-tagged article and putting the appropriate tag(s) on them. As the de facto administrator for WikiProject Colombia, I try and keep track of all new pages that come up that are relevant to the project, but obviously some slip through the gaps now and then, and I was surprised to see a bunch of them come up last week on the "unassessed articles" list. I know how tedious your job must be (there must be tens of thousands of untagged articles on Wikipedia) but having them all tagged is so important, otherwise relevant WikiProjects are unaware of them, and can't improve them or send them for AfD or whatever... they just sit there forgotten. So... here's at least one editor who is grateful for your work.
By the way, is there a page or category holder for all these untagged articles? I've looked in the past for such a place to find which articles remain untagged, but never discovered it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: No problem, man! Another important job is encouraging someone--thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Sorry--saw your question. Is there a holder? No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- How the heck do you find all those untagged articles then? I've always thought that was a major flaw on Wikipedia, that there isn't a holder like there is for current proposed deletions or whatever – it's the reason such an enormous backlog has developed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Lots of making lists with WP:AWB. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Do you want particular help with Colombia? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see... no, that wouldn't have been any good to me to try and use AWB – I can write well, but don't put me in charge of any software or coding...
- That's kind of you to offer, but I don't think there's much that needs doing in the way of tagging – like I said, I try and keep on top of it, and actually there were fewer than 50 missing articles (plus category talk pages) that needed to be tagged with the project, which is probably an awful lot less than for other countries. I've just been going through them and adding further relevant WikiProject tags for biographies, sport, music, history, whatever – most of them are not particularly notable topics and a few that should be AfD'd... I really should concentrate on getting the high priority articles up to GA status, and anyway at the moment my priority is improving some album articles that I want to see at GA. Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- How the heck do you find all those untagged articles then? I've always thought that was a major flaw on Wikipedia, that there isn't a holder like there is for current proposed deletions or whatever – it's the reason such an enormous backlog has developed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- WikiProject Germany here (I found you!!!). Keep them coming. –Vami_IV✠ 11:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Vami IV: Achtung! Ja, meine Freund. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
hi. WP:ESPIONAGE here, found you on some other article. I already have access to AWB, but I rarely use it. How to use it for tagging articles with project banners? I want to tag espionage, and WP:MAFIA. Thanks a lot in advance.
PS: Ich bin ein doughnut. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- You have to be very careful but you can start by generating a list from a category and then go from there. I'd recommend starting with something small at first and please ask me if you need help. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry for delayed reply. I didnt realise you had replied. Thanks a lot for replying. :) Well, so far I have made 3 edits using AWB. And that was a long time ago. So I am like 99.8% stranger to AWB. Could you please tell me how to do it? (I will download AWB as soon as I post this reply.) To start with, I will go with categories that have very few articles in it. Once I am confident about it, i will start editing on larger scale. On side note, on scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being highest, i am level 5 programmer in C; but i am on level 1 with regex. Kindly ping me while replying. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 00:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: Sorry for not pinging earlier--I'm usually good enough at that. I would make a list from a category, right click to convert to talk pages, and then start editing from there. You may want to choose the "More" tab to the left of the edit box and insert text to prepend (such as a banner to tag talk pages). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I added banners to talkpages of articles in Category:Recipients of the Intelligence Medal of Merit. I checked "skip if contains" espionage, so there was no repetition. But on some pages, the banner went above {{talk header}}, is there a way to make it go below the talk header automatically? I did the first experiment on Category:Japanese companies established in 1976 which has only one article in it. Also, the talkpages have been tagged with "wikiproject espionage", and "wikiproject spy"; how to add two separate keywords for skipping? Are there some things to avoid or to be careful of? Thanks a lot for all your help again. :)
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)- @Usernamekiran: I don't know of a way to do that automatically, unfortunately. I know there is but I am too ignorant. Two key words for skipping can probably be done with regex but I am also ignorant of this. I am happy to help but this is why I recommended above to post to the help for AWB specifically--not to be dismissive but because I am not learned enough to really be helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I added banners to talkpages of articles in Category:Recipients of the Intelligence Medal of Merit. I checked "skip if contains" espionage, so there was no repetition. But on some pages, the banner went above {{talk header}}, is there a way to make it go below the talk header automatically? I did the first experiment on Category:Japanese companies established in 1976 which has only one article in it. Also, the talkpages have been tagged with "wikiproject espionage", and "wikiproject spy"; how to add two separate keywords for skipping? Are there some things to avoid or to be careful of? Thanks a lot for all your help again. :)
- @Usernamekiran: Sorry for not pinging earlier--I'm usually good enough at that. I would make a list from a category, right click to convert to talk pages, and then start editing from there. You may want to choose the "More" tab to the left of the edit box and insert text to prepend (such as a banner to tag talk pages). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry for delayed reply. I didnt realise you had replied. Thanks a lot for replying. :) Well, so far I have made 3 edits using AWB. And that was a long time ago. So I am like 99.8% stranger to AWB. Could you please tell me how to do it? (I will download AWB as soon as I post this reply.) To start with, I will go with categories that have very few articles in it. Once I am confident about it, i will start editing on larger scale. On side note, on scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being highest, i am level 5 programmer in C; but i am on level 1 with regex. Kindly ping me while replying. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 00:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the reply, you have already helped me a lot. :)
I will consult user:Xaosflux for this. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For tagging thousands of pages using AWB! Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC) |
- @Magioladitis: Thanks to you as well--you've done a lot of good work here for a long time and you have helped develop AWB to allow for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Koavf! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 17:56, Monday, August 21, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
File talkpages
Hi, Could I ask why you've added a template to hundreds of file talkpages ? ..... The templates are as far as I'm aware for article talkpages only..... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: See Category:File-Class_articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well... shit!, Learnt something new today! :), Ah well thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: I learn something new everyday as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well... shit!, Learnt something new today! :), Ah well thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Investment
 I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! |
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
- Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
- Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A goat for you!
.jpg)
Yes.
Rm.butler (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Rm.butler: Wow. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Pakistan Star | |
| Your efforts on tagging and assessing articles under WikiProject Pakistan, in the past and present, are much appreciated. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| this WikiAward was given to Koavf by Mar4d (talk) on 23:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
- @Mar4d: Thanks--your efforts to educate the English-speaking world about this oft-misunderstood and important region are valuable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Matilda I, Countess of Nevers
Hello, could you take a look at my newly created article Matilda I, Countess of Nevers? I translated from the French Wiki (a bit from the german one), but I believe a native English speaker still needs to take a good look at it, to see if it all makes sense. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jeff5102: Going thru it now. If I have questions, should I post them here? Spreekt Nederlands? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you can post them here. I speak both Dutch as English, so it is up to you which language you prefer to use. And already my thanks for your recent edits on the article. All the best, Jeff5102 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Eek bin een Amerikaner und mein Nederlands eest... Bad. So I'll use English. The only thing that is really confusing is "she confirmed the property". This may be proper English when referring to nobility and what they did in Europe but I just don't know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reedited after trying to translate the Spanish version. There is still some work to be done, but it is OK for now. Good night from my part of the world,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Eek bin een Amerikaner und mein Nederlands eest... Bad. So I'll use English. The only thing that is really confusing is "she confirmed the property". This may be proper English when referring to nobility and what they did in Europe but I just don't know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you can post them here. I speak both Dutch as English, so it is up to you which language you prefer to use. And already my thanks for your recent edits on the article. All the best, Jeff5102 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ireland
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ireland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GR (Contact me) (See my edits) 17:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk pages to deleted articles
I just wanted to let you know you're creating talk pages when the article has already been deleted. From my watchlist alone, you created Talk:Izabella Trojanowska and Talk:Sarao. Please check to see if the article exists before you create a talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Tavix: Thanks. These lists were generated just two weeks ago but that will happen. Appreciate it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- I took care of them. I'm just making sure you're aware what you're doing. Best, -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories
I'm not talking about the African American category, I'm talking about Category:American male professional wrestlers and Category:American female professional wrestlers, those are subcategories to Category:American professional wrestlers and WP:DUPCAT doesn't apply there. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 10:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbon Salminen: Ah. That you are--excuse me, it's getting late. But the edits stand due to WP:GHETTO: "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality/disability subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree, unless the parent is (or will become) purely a container category." Since Category:American professional wrestlers is not marked with {{container}}, it's not a container category. If it were marked as such, I'd be happy to remove them. Is that your intention? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it was empty until you started adding pages to it, so might as well make it a container. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 10:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbon Salminen: An empty category with {{CategoryTOC}}? Sure, I can diffuse it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it was empty until you started adding pages to it, so might as well make it a container. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 10:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Side comment on this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Derek_Minor&curid=37966093&diff=798517675&oldid=798434538 I find it odd that Category:African-American male actors is not a child cat of Category:American male actors. Screen actors, etc. follow that precedent. Do you know the history behind that? Is there any reason not to make the first a child of the second? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Walter Görlitz
- @Walter Görlitz: I 100% agree and there are other categories which are like this: an intersection of gender and race which are upmerged twice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Walter Görlitz: For that matter, I have no idea why African-American categories are tagged as non-diffusing but for some reason (e.g.) Pakistani-American ones aren't. I know that blacks are much more prominent in the United States so maybe there is just more attention on these categories but still it is a head-scratcher to me. I'm just duping ones that are marked as non-diffusing at the moment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding categories to a bunch of articles I'm watching
I always get confused between diffusing and non-diffusing. Thanks for your help. --MopTop (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
- @MopTop: Hey thanks for the thanks. Encouragement goes a long way. I think that WP:GHETTO is very confusing and poorly implemented. I also think it's not the correct solution but either way, that's the community's choice after a lot of discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you think you could use a bot for this? I can't see the wood for the trees in my watchlist because of your masses of minor category edits. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Michig: I don't have a bot account but if it would help you, I can request the flood flag. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- With a maximum of 1000 changes showing in the watchlist, if I go away for half a day there are other changes I'm not going to be able to see as things stand. Of the current 1000 items showing in my watchlist, over 300 are your edits from the last 2 hours, so if you could find a solution to this it would be appreciated. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Michig: Totally understandable. I guess you're watching a lot of a certain type of article that I've been editing? If you're willing to tell me what it is, I can skip it for a day or two so you can catch up. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Michig: Was this still a problem or did the edits die down from your watchlist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Michig: Totally understandable. I guess you're watching a lot of a certain type of article that I've been editing? If you're willing to tell me what it is, I can skip it for a day or two so you can catch up. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- With a maximum of 1000 changes showing in the watchlist, if I go away for half a day there are other changes I'm not going to be able to see as things stand. Of the current 1000 items showing in my watchlist, over 300 are your edits from the last 2 hours, so if you could find a solution to this it would be appreciated. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Category issue
Why did you add Category:American musical theatre actors and Category:American singers to George Givot, among others, when those categories specify that entries should be moved to subcategories and he is already in Category:American male musical theatre actors and Category:American male singers? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Art historians
I don't understand why you have added American historians to people who are already in American art historians. Art history is a separate discipline to general history. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: As you can see on Category:American art historians, it is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American historians. I did not tag the category as such. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- What is a "non diffusing category"? Art historians are not understood as general historians and therefore the addition is misleading and wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: See Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories, which is linked from the category itself. This is consistent with all subcategories of Category:American historians. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Philafrenzy. This edit making American art historians was probably not such a great idea. It is inconsistent with all subcategories of Category:Art_historians_by_nationality. Mduvekot (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. It is probably a mistake that he marked it as non-diffusing. That editor only edited for a few months in 2012. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: Well, it's stood for five years. If (e.g.) the history project thinks that they shouldn't be non-diffusing, then it's easy to remove the parent cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's been completely ignored for 5 years! The solution would be to remove the non-diffusing tag, which may lack any consensus. Did you notice that the category also has the "diffuse" tag, with the text: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] Well, that is easily done. If you think they should be removed, I can do that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is a clear contradiction between the two tags, which should have been spotted and investigated before doing vast numbers of edits, and should be now. We need a consensus on the issue, as there are good arguments both ways, not least the difficulties of allocating most historians to appropriate subcats. Since nobody much watchlists categories, I suggest an Rfc is advertised to relevant wikiprojects - History, Academics, Amarica, etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] Well, that is easily done. If you think they should be removed, I can do that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's been completely ignored for 5 years! The solution would be to remove the non-diffusing tag, which may lack any consensus. Did you notice that the category also has the "diffuse" tag, with the text: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories." Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: Well, it's stood for five years. If (e.g.) the history project thinks that they shouldn't be non-diffusing, then it's easy to remove the parent cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. It is probably a mistake that he marked it as non-diffusing. That editor only edited for a few months in 2012. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Philafrenzy. This edit making American art historians was probably not such a great idea. It is inconsistent with all subcategories of Category:Art_historians_by_nationality. Mduvekot (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: See Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories, which is linked from the category itself. This is consistent with all subcategories of Category:American historians. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- What is a "non diffusing category"? Art historians are not understood as general historians and therefore the addition is misleading and wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: If there really is neglect in administering the non-diffusion and it's at odds with the rest of the scheme, then it seems like just taking out the non-diffusing tags is the solution. Do you want to call an RFC? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Another solution is just to categorize them by state, thereby leaving the parent diffused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Noooooo! Seriously??? That's just ridiculous, and they all move around over their career anyway. There should be an Rfc, and having stirred up the issue, I think you should launch it. Random people add tags randomly, and they should not be taken very sriously without evidence that people have been following them. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Parent and child categories
Hi Koavf, can you explain why you are adding parent categories to articles which already have a subcategory of the parent? Normally this is not done (except in the case of non-diffusing subcategories), and in fact other editors go around removing the parent categories whenever a subcategory is present, so I'd like to hear why you are doing that. I'd also like to get BrownHairedGirl's take on this as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: Per WP:GHETTO. Do you have a particular edit in mind that you think may be in error? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: It looks like I am mistaken about Category:American singers which is explicitly marked for diffusion. I will fix these--sorry for that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: For what it's worth, the offending categories are Category:American rappers, Category:American singers, Category:American guitarists, and Category:American academics. I am fixing them all now. None of the other parent categories are marked for diffusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: It looks like I am mistaken about Category:American singers which is explicitly marked for diffusion. I will fix these--sorry for that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've more often seen editors remove the kind of parent categories you are adding than adding them (which is exactly why they currently don't have the parent category [until you re-added them]). WP:GHETTO does not say "re-add the parent category". The fact that two sets of editors are undoing the other set's work makes for a lot of busy work and a lot of articles popping up to the top of watch lists for no good agreed-upon reason. I'd like to hear BrownHairedGirl's take on this. I'm not just talking about singers, guitarists, or academics. I'm talking about all of the parent categories you have been re-adding of late, literally many tens of thousands of edits. Please stop and gain consensus for re-adding the parent categories that other editors have spent a lot of time removing. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: I've started by generating a list of explicitly-marked non-diffusing categories. Are you suggesting that those should not be edited as well? I'm assuming a tacit consensus if the category is explicitly marked as such. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've more often seen editors remove the kind of parent categories you are adding than adding them (which is exactly why they currently don't have the parent category [until you re-added them]). WP:GHETTO does not say "re-add the parent category". The fact that two sets of editors are undoing the other set's work makes for a lot of busy work and a lot of articles popping up to the top of watch lists for no good agreed-upon reason. I'd like to hear BrownHairedGirl's take on this. I'm not just talking about singers, guitarists, or academics. I'm talking about all of the parent categories you have been re-adding of late, literally many tens of thousands of edits. Please stop and gain consensus for re-adding the parent categories that other editors have spent a lot of time removing. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please, if you would, wait for comment from BrownHairedGirl. She is an admin and has the most experience in and knowledge of categorization. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: Sure. In the interim, I will fix what I know to be several mistaken categories on my part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: As you can see from my contribs, I've put a dent in the above-mentioned diffusing categories and I'll be heading to sleep soon. I'll finish off the rest first thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: Sure. In the interim, I will fix what I know to be several mistaken categories on my part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please, if you would, wait for comment from BrownHairedGirl. She is an admin and has the most experience in and knowledge of categorization. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Same question, is there some good reason why Paul Robeson needs to be in the parent (American male singers) and the child (African-American male singers) and various siblings? Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: No. I am diffusing singers, actors, dancers, rappers, guitarists, and academics. Some are already done and I was actually responsible for emptying some of these schemes months ago myself (e.g. Category:American guitarists). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also Gertrude Bell who is actually in about 3 variants of British women writers/British writer etc . I've fixed Robeson and Bell, but wondered if i was missing something. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: So as to not leave Category:19th-century British women writers as a "last rung category" under Category:19th-century British writers. See also Category:British women writers and Category:British writers. But she is, in fact in Category:19th-century English writers. Looks like I should go thru those as well. :/ Thanks and sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: See, e.g. here. This is a relatively easy fix. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention--I have a lot of edits of mine to review. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: So as to not leave Category:19th-century British women writers as a "last rung category" under Category:19th-century British writers. See also Category:British women writers and Category:British writers. But she is, in fact in Category:19th-century English writers. Looks like I should go thru those as well. :/ Thanks and sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also Gertrude Bell who is actually in about 3 variants of British women writers/British writer etc . I've fixed Robeson and Bell, but wondered if i was missing something. Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Category edits
I've noticed that your recent cat edits, where you have been adding articles to the parent cats of categories they're already in the sub of. At least of these cats are listed as container categories and aren't even supposed to have any articles in them. In addition, it's pretty redundant to have articles in both parent and subcategories. Unless there was already a discussion about this that I'm unaware of, I really think that you should stop this until we have a discussion because as I understand it, your edits seem to be going against the current policy. JDDJS (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: As you can see in the above thread, there are four categories which are diffusing that I should not have done this to and I am fixing them now. (Two are done already.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't the cats be defused? The Policy you cited in your previous response actually says that actors are one of the cats that are separated by gender. I remember having a discussion years ago about if we did separate actors by gender, and there was strong consensus to do just that. JDDJS (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: I am fixing the Category:American male musical theatre actors now as it is marked as diffusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- What about Category:American actors? That was intentionally defused into many different sub articles and turned into a container because it would be way too huge if it wasn't. JDDJS (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I will just go to every category marked as a container that I've edited. Please let me know if you see any others. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Same case with Category:American male actors and Category:American actresses. JDDJS (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: Thank you--I'll go thru the American actors scheme. For what it's worth, I only diffused American categories, so this wouldn't be extensive. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Same case with Category:American male actors and Category:American actresses. JDDJS (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I will just go to every category marked as a container that I've edited. Please let me know if you see any others. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- What about Category:American actors? That was intentionally defused into many different sub articles and turned into a container because it would be way too huge if it wasn't. JDDJS (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: I am fixing the Category:American male musical theatre actors now as it is marked as diffusing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't the cats be defused? The Policy you cited in your previous response actually says that actors are one of the cats that are separated by gender. I remember having a discussion years ago about if we did separate actors by gender, and there was strong consensus to do just that. JDDJS (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I'm happy that we were able to clear this up without it turning into an argument. JDDJS (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @JDDJS: I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong on this count and the onus is on me to fix it. With some of the other above categories, I'm justified--this time I'm not. I respect your time and want to fix my mistake. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there. Actually, your self-revert here was unnecessary, I think. Category:American films is tagged with Template:All included. All the top-level Fooian films cats are. I believe. You were right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Shawn in Montreal: I included articles but not subcategories. Flattening the entire category structure is probably a bad idea, even if the individual articles are all in the top category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes even after all my time here I honestly don't feel confident about the rules on this. I tend to defer to Lugnuts or Bearcat in this area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Shawn in Montreal: Thanks for your feedback--it's useful to get your perspective. And yes, I fear that sometimes the category structure is actually just intractably broken. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes even after all my time here I honestly don't feel confident about the rules on this. I tend to defer to Lugnuts or Bearcat in this area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Years of the 1st century in Africa
Please note that Category:Years of the 1st century in Africa (etc) is liable to be deleted as empty, following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_29#Ancient_periods_by_continent. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Thanks. I've seen that these subcats have been merged/deleted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Great work
"Remove from fully diffused parent cat. My apologies," talk about "watchlist flood" :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Yeah, I know--there's no real winner when you screw up with categorizing. Thanks for your patience. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem, you go with your bad AWB - FlightTime (open channel) 20:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem, you go with your bad AWB
Let me know...
...if you'd like any AWB help. I'm happy to hop in if need be - Lord knows I've made some beautiful category screwups in my day, too. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Hey, that's nice. If you want to take a look at Category:American actors and its subcats, that's the big one that I need to re-diffuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Just to make sure I'm not missing anything: it looks like the chief subcats that need to be removed are Category:American male actors and Category:American actors, right? Shouldn't take me too long. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yes, just make sure that everyone is properly diffused into another category: e.g. someone can be in Category:American male actors and Category:Actors from North Carolina or Category:21st-century American actors or Category:American video game actors but not only Category:American male actors. The other category schemes are finishing up and I'm diffusing dancers by state and finishing off Category:American singers (which was already diffused by state, century, and genre). 03:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Right. What I'm doing is running a PetScan search for everything under Category:American male television actors (and then "film", "stage", and the like) which intersects with Category:American male actors. That should find anything that's double-categorized without including anything that doesn't need to be removed. What edit summary should I use? I was going to go with "fix overcategorization using AWB", if that's OK? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yes, just make sure that everyone is properly diffused into another category: e.g. someone can be in Category:American male actors and Category:Actors from North Carolina or Category:21st-century American actors or Category:American video game actors but not only Category:American male actors. The other category schemes are finishing up and I'm diffusing dancers by state and finishing off Category:American singers (which was already diffused by state, century, and genre). 03:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Just to make sure I'm not missing anything: it looks like the chief subcats that need to be removed are Category:American male actors and Category:American actors, right? Shouldn't take me too long. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Sounds great. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Great. Starting up AWB now...I'll do what I can for the moment and then finish up later. (No work tomorrow, so I can stay up late. :-)) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I've done my first pass though both Category:American male actors and Category:American actors, and removed a bunch. I'll maybe do another pass this evening; I'm planning on being out of the house for most of the afternoon. Any other categories to look at? I see a lot of people who are both in Category:African-American male actors and Category:African-American actors, which looks like it needs sorting out - I can do that this evening, certainly. I'd also like to take a look at some of the writer categories - there's refinement available there, easily. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yes, that would be good. Thanks again. I'm going out today too, so I won't have a full day of editing. Sorting out these actors is the most helpful part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Happy to be of help - I'll get to some more this evening. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Category:African-American male actors and Category:African-American actors have been sorted out. I won't have access to AWB for most of the day tomorrow, but I'll try to start looking at ways to refine the writer categories tomorrow night sometime. Unless there's something else that wants looking at? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actors and male musicians look like the two biggies. I'll work thru the musicians and if you give it another pass, that would help. Very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Will do, then, tomorrow night. And it's my pleasure - always happy to be of assistance. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actors and male musicians look like the two biggies. I'll work thru the musicians and if you give it another pass, that would help. Very helpful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Category:African-American male actors and Category:African-American actors have been sorted out. I won't have access to AWB for most of the day tomorrow, but I'll try to start looking at ways to refine the writer categories tomorrow night sometime. Unless there's something else that wants looking at? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Happy to be of help - I'll get to some more this evening. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yes, that would be good. Thanks again. I'm going out today too, so I won't have a full day of editing. Sorting out these actors is the most helpful part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I've done my first pass though both Category:American male actors and Category:American actors, and removed a bunch. I'll maybe do another pass this evening; I'm planning on being out of the house for most of the afternoon. Any other categories to look at? I see a lot of people who are both in Category:African-American male actors and Category:African-American actors, which looks like it needs sorting out - I can do that this evening, certainly. I'd also like to take a look at some of the writer categories - there's refinement available there, easily. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'm pretty sure all the work that needs doing on American actors is done. I'll take a look at some of the writers next...tomorrow maybe, or Saturday. Depends on when I get home tomorrow night. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Score. Thanks man. And you can always let me know if you need an other set of eyes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Any time. Thanks for the offer. I'll probably be back using AWB more regularly in a few months, once I get a few more articles out of my system. :-)
- Let me know if you spot anything I've missed, please - otherwise happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Chinese footballers
Those player from Hong Kong represented Republic of China but not Taiwan nor Chinese Taipei, nor they did not have Republic of China (Taiwan) nationality after the constitution reform that defined de facto border of the country. A cat Footballers from Republic of China should be created. Matthew_hk tc 05:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
PRC only replaced Taiwan as the representative of "China" in 1971. China and the United Nations. It look like someone represented all Ireland team is not equal to Northern Irish. Matthew_hk tc 05:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Matthew hk: But he represented the ROC after 1949... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- ROC is not quite equal to Taiwan (at least until some time on social-political constitutional reform). And Chinese FA of PRC did not join AFC and FIFA until later date. Matthew_hk tc 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Matthew hk: I understand that the state "ROC" is not the same thing as the island "Taiwan" but we have named the article at "Taiwan" as the common short-form name for the ROC and either way, the ROC was located on Taiwan when he competed for them. He may not be ethnically Taiwanese but that's true of a lot of athletes who compete in international tournaments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- ROC is not quite equal to Taiwan (at least until some time on social-political constitutional reform). And Chinese FA of PRC did not join AFC and FIFA until later date. Matthew_hk tc 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- All I could say they are Chinese Taipei /Taiwan international is wrong. Such issue could mirrored to Ireland national football team (1882–1950). Matthew_hk tc 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
And the move discussion of namespace Taiwan and Republic of China ruined all. Before the last one, I was remember Taiwan was the namespace of Geography of Taiwan but now they just change it. The one China policy or China + Taiwan (diplomatic) policy of several countries as well as IOC membership are complex issue, but putting those player in Chinese Taipei international footballers , is wrong. Matthew_hk tc 11:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Matthew hk: This is true--it is a mess. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Categories
Hey, I don't think we need both (e.g.): English footballers and English women's footballers. The second one is a subcat from the first, which makes the first not needed. And if you look at it, it is unnecessary. Kante4 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Kante4: If you'll see at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Category, it's not clear that women shouldn't be in the by-nationality category. If anything, the leading sentences ("Players should be placed in their respective country's sub-category named in the standard Category:Countrian [footballers/soccer players] format and in the fitting position sub-category. They may also be placed in a club-specific or competition-specific sub-category if one exists.") say the opposite. Plus, this is consistent with WP:GHETTO. In practice, there are many who are in both (e.g.) Category:American soccer players and Category:American women's soccer players. I'll post to WT:FOOTBALL. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks you. Headscratching for me as there is no need for both (imo) but more inputs is welcome. Kante4 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Kante4: I agree but there it is. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I just came here to say the same thing: I think women's footballers should be diffused from men's. They can never participate together in the same match or tournament so basically they are completely different entities, there's no point in merging them. I also came to ask why did you decide to add 'Examplean expatriates' to every expatriate player? - BlameRuiner (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BlameRuiner: As you may see in my contribs, I just posted to WT:SOCCER. I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence--can you give me an example of an edit that you don't understand? Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category, which states, "Players should be placed in their respective country's sub-category named in the standard Category:Countrian [footballers/soccer players] format and in the fitting position sub-category. They may also be placed in a club-specific or competition-specific sub-category if one exists." Categories like Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers or Category:Norway international footballers are supposed to have their individual articles also in the parent nationality categories. Please note that I did not make this convention--I'm merely enforcing it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- In my last sentence I meant the edits like this one [1] -BlameRuiner (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BlameRuiner: Oh my--that's a mistake. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- In my last sentence I meant the edits like this one [1] -BlameRuiner (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @BlameRuiner: As you may see in my contribs, I just posted to WT:SOCCER. I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence--can you give me an example of an edit that you don't understand? Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Category, which states, "Players should be placed in their respective country's sub-category named in the standard Category:Countrian [footballers/soccer players] format and in the fitting position sub-category. They may also be placed in a club-specific or competition-specific sub-category if one exists." Categories like Category:Icelandic expatriate footballers or Category:Norway international footballers are supposed to have their individual articles also in the parent nationality categories. Please note that I did not make this convention--I'm merely enforcing it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. I just came here to say the same thing: I think women's footballers should be diffused from men's. They can never participate together in the same match or tournament so basically they are completely different entities, there's no point in merging them. I also came to ask why did you decide to add 'Examplean expatriates' to every expatriate player? - BlameRuiner (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Kante4: I agree but there it is. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks you. Headscratching for me as there is no need for both (imo) but more inputs is welcome. Kante4 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:Stretch Armstrong and the Flex Fighters.png
Thanks for uploading File:Stretch Armstrong and the Flex Fighters.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
🙏🏼 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🙏🏼. Since you had some involvement with the 🙏🏼 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)