User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive7

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

revert redirect on Musicstation

Hi TA, noted your notes on reverting the redirect. Apreciate that leaving it as under construction may not be correct. A page does need to built for this. Will look into how to do it and the requirments. As a newbie a link to where I should start would me most welcome. Was also wondering how to create a page with the subject title capitalisation "MusicStation" (rahther than Musicstation). --Mw00001 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper merge

TA, we are trying to replace the article currently in place with the User:Jaysweet/Jack_the_Ripper temp page, where a lot of the consensus was hammered out an instituted. None of us knows how to do it. Could you lend a hand, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you replace the article with the subpage? Colin seems to think its pretty much the same page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I assumed someone had already copied the new page itself into place, and just merged the histories. Anyone is welcome to do the actual activation of the user space page. Just as a normal revert would be done, as they are now in the JtR history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I've placed the article Omfg for deletion as it's not for wikipedia, and have notified the contributor, i hope you don't have any objections. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PROD removed as contested. At this point I really think that this should go through AFD deletion, if at all. If you AFD it I'll likely not initially add an opinion, but I'll likely follow and could be persuaded either way (at which point I would add my opinion). But this falls into the same category as a whole slew of other internet slang pages as currently being soft redirects to Wiktionary. I'm not really sure why the others should remain but this one go. Though if you AFD just this one, maybe it could at the least serve to measure opinions as to whether the rest should be AFDed as well.

I do think that, if OMFG is do be deleted, an AFD is needed, as it would likely be recreated again and again. And without an AFD, if it gets recreated even once, then PROD loses validity for repeated deletion. AFD on the other hand could potentially get it deleted with teeth, up to and including page protection if warrented. So in general, I think that PROD is not the proper avenue for handling the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave this page alone, i only noticed it when going through the vandalism list, and thought it shouldn't be on wikipedia. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it's not. That's the whole point of it being a soft redirect to Wiktionary. It's something that people are likely to look up here, but really belongs over there, so we send them over there. There are a couple of hundred of these internet slang acronyms in my watchlist that are Wiktionary soft redirects. Each day 5-6 of them get definitions added to them, and that gets reverted by me or some other watchers. And more eyes on these are always welcome on them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Consumers

TA -- Am confused about why you delete article on The Consumers, very prominent (if under-documented) American punk band, including members who went on to significant fame and influeence, and whose role in the creation of their genre has been very significant. Please contact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratata (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:BAND and WP:RS. Your band needs to meet the notability requirements in the first, and the sourcing requirements in the second. Without both of those, it fails to meet the requirements necessary to remain on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Broadview Avenue Public School

Why did you list this school as a "company that doesn't assert significance"? It's a school, for christ sakes, not some multi-million dollar company. 71.235.175.147 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It still had nothing in the slightest to show how it meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm confused why you mislabeled the reason it got deleted. 71.235.175.147 (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains

An editor has nominated Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character creation in City of Heroes and City of Villains and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

{{afd}}

I started an article on the MV Xue Long today.

I saw that you deleted a previous version that was determined to be a {{copyvio}}.

To the best of my recollection I played no role in the original.

Could you userify the deleted article to User:Geo Swan/working/Xue Long? I'd like to turn whatever link it copy violation of into a proper references.

Could you copy the full edit history, and the talk page please?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't bring back copyvios like that. DOing so would again be violating the copyright. But also, I cannot find the versions you say I deleted. Can you tell me *exactly* what name I deleted it under? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article you deleted, on August 9 2007, was entitled, Xue Long-the icebreaker of china.

I went and looked for the discussion around the perceived copyright violation that lead to the original version's deletion. I couldn't find it. Can you help me out? Can you direct me to that discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was a speedy deletion tag, which pointed here as the source for the information there. There is nothing there now, though, and I don't have any specific memories of what was there, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the Polar Research Institute of China. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So, since you think the deleted text is a copyvio, and you can't userify it, could you compare that text with this? Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the deleted article was a word-for-word copy of this page. Kuru ^talk 01:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Year) introductions categories

I see that you originally introduced (heh) the Category:2008 introductions and earlier years series of categories. I am trying to figure out whether there is any real difference between these and the Category:2008 establishments and earlier years series of categories. I don't want to start a big debate over merging/renaming categories if there is some well-known rationale for having these two separate sets of categories that I'm not aware of. --Russ (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that I am mostly a janitor of these year structure categories. I've built out a *lot* of different year structure categorie, but mostly because they were already red links in place somewhere. So I just built them out to convert the red links to blue ones, if they seemed reasonable. But I mostly fill in the holes in existing structures. I was not the one who initially started either the Introductions or Establishments structure. So I think you need to look for who else has built out such categories. A quick glance at some shows User:Tim! has built a number of them, so maybe he's where the difference originated. Sorry that I cannot be of more assistance in this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection of Park Han-byul

Hi, I'm not sure what went on with this page last year (a succession of foreign language and gibberish articles by the looks of it), but I'm hoping that it can now be unprotected. I've written a stub for this actress in my userspace, which I would like to move across into the main space. It's a bit shorter than I'd prefer, but I'm satisfied that she meets the notability criteria and hopefully I'll be able to russle up a few more sources to expand it a bit. Regards. PC78 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Harleston

Curious to know why you changed this disambiguation page into a redirect -- just because not all of the articles exist (yet) doesn't mean it's not valid as a point of disambiguation. I came across it (and have since fixed) as I was checking for disambiguation pages in A14 road which needed to link to Harleston, Suffolk, but was being redirected to Harleston, Norfolk as the it was pointing at Harleston -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguations are for navigating between two or more project pages. Redirects are for navigating to a single project page. If a term has only one page on the project then a redirect is the better way to handle it. As soon as a second page is created, as you just did, then a disambig becomes the proper way to handle the term. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that convention, and to be honest, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense; as someone may end up on the "wrong" page (because an article author didn't test all the links). Do you know where this policy/recommendation is documented? -- Ratarsed (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. Sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey TexasAndroid - what's with getting rid of GFY?! It's a real acronym with good meaning behind it? Please tell me this is not due to religious beliefs....please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.203.94.34 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:V archetypeicon brute.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:OCLC

Hi Texas,

You protected the uppon mentionned page, I made a proposal to improve this template here. If you are approving the change, can you please unprotect the page for me to do it or improve it by yourself ? Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Long comment...

Yours is at 600 bytes or so and mine only 200, I guess everything's big in Texas. :-) Cheers, amigo. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The shorter ones are starting to show back up on the list, so I went a little overboard in making sure to push the latest out a bit further. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you and I have done a good job clearing out that list, I have a theory that only a very few articles other than dabs can be written in 150 bytes or less...but we'll see. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently created Template:longcomment because it was too much trouble to remember the preferred wording. Is that template long enough? Are there any changes you would make? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Impressing tackling of post-transwiki should be deletions

Just had a look at today's AfD log, I am impressed. Now if we can get some of these to stay gone it will be nice. Travellingcari (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Working through the backlog at Category:Transwiki cleanup. Only about half done with the category at this point. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm working through the unclear notability backup, there are a couple of us determined to whack it down. May '07 alone was >1000 when we started and some are so easy to fix, delete or clean it's easy. Sometimes I chuckle when people don't throw a phrase in google when they tag it for notability -- a number of times I get the verbatim copyvio text. That and I don't have the brain cells for article writing at the moment :) Travellingcari (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored it, I was unaware it was at AFD, that tag was replaced with a speedy deletion tag. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wayobjects

The Wiktionary in turn should refer back to the Wikipedia to cover the links to this article in the following articles (see also Talk:Wayobjects):

• Right-of-way
• Permanent way
• Structure gauge

as well as

• Simutrans Transport Simulator
• Rail terminology
• Wayside etc.

Hence before deleting this article look at "what links here", but I could make it a redirect back to "W" in "Rail terminology". Peter Horn 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No definition yet either way:

Peter Horn 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Booder et al.

I'm not going to contest your decision to PROD those transwiki'd definitions but long term I think we'll end up with soft-redirects on those pages. My intent had been to replace the content with the {{wi}} template once the pages had been moved out of the Wiktionary transwiki queue and into actual Wiktionary entries. See, for example, the history of bunkum, a page that by chance or interest moved more quickly.

There are many more pages that need to go the same way. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to convert any or all of the pages I PRODed to soft redirects, then go for it. I PROD things that might be eligible for speedy deletion so that they get five days for someone else to come up with a better solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely do not want to convert them to soft-redirects until the Wiktionary editors move them out of their transwiki queue and into actual entries. Pointing to the transwiki queue would be a maintenance nightmare.
My concern is that the Prod may run out before the Wiktionarians make the move. As I said, I'm not going to contest your decision because I agree that transwiki'd articles don't belong in Wikipedia anymore. But there's enough dissent on that point that it's worth some extra effort. Soft-redirects seem to defuse the controversy. Still, if they disappear via PROD, we can always wait until they are recreated and soft-redirect then... Rossami (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Eep, did I mess something up? I got the PRODds on my talk page and went ahead and created the wiktionary pages for those and put in the {{wi}} but then I came here to thank you for tagging those and fixing the template on some of the others I've done and I find that I may have jumped the gun somehow? Erp! Perhaps I should just stick to Vandal fighting and Dab page stuffs :) Legotech (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in my book, but it sounds like Rossami may think you are a little premature. <Shrug> I would say that's between the two of you though. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Subpar

Hey, just wondering if you could put a longer comment in the subpar soft redirect and maybe also use the protected parameter in the {{wi}} template. Ta. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, guess I started working on those at precisely the wrong time... --Closedmouth (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Interesting coincidence that we both decide to clear those out at the same time, after them being on the list for days. For my part, since the lag was finally gone today, with the list showing in near real time for the first time in a while, I finally felt it worth bothering to clear some of those types of things out. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same reason here. Seems like we've been waiting for years. It's also rather appropriate your comment is longer. (I refuse to make a joke about that.) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything is bigger in Texas. :) (How's that for a clean way to make a joke out of it. :)) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Royal progress

An article that you have been involved in editing, Royal progress, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal progress. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerasimos (Michaleas) of San Francisco

Deleted for "No meaningful content"? Can we get this page back, so I can work on the content? Thanks.Stephen (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No and yes. There really was nothing useful there to restore. Just two external links to the sf.goarch.org site. OTOH, if you think that he meets the notability requirements, you are more than welcome to construct a brand new article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do. (I've also added the Kosovo label just below, so that the Gerasimos issue and I are not tangled up in that mess.)Stephen (talk)

Kosovo

I was hoping you could offer some assistance. I trust people from Texas and that's why I go to school here (about 35 miles from San Antonio).

I have been trying to improve the article on Kosovo, in particular the history section. I have supported my additions with references and I have tried to include all periods of history. Nevertheless, there are some anti-Kosovar elements who feel that the history section should begin with the middle ages and should not include references. I think this is vandalism if they keep taking off the sources and deleting portions of history that are not convenient to their beliefs. Please, help me. I don't want to entangle myself in an edit war, but there's no way to talk to them.--Getoar (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This user's edits to the history section are highly POV and romantic in tone an unsuitable to an encyclopedia. This has been repeatedly brought on the discussion page, only to be ignored by him. He has made a ton of edits, without so much as consulting the history page once. As for trying to communicate, that's pretty rich. After making a minor edit to the article, I received abusive [[1]] and threatening [[2]] messages from him , while when I tried to reach out to him he just ignored me both here [[3]] as well as here [[4]]. He has also tried to frame me for vandalism here [[5]] when in fact that edit was performed by another user [[6]]. This user has a very strong POV and combative attitude and has already been blocked once. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also, use of the notorious ethnic slur "shkije" for Serbs here [[7]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is one minefield that I must respectfully decline to enter. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LIGAS

I request that you reverse yourself on your A3 deletion of LIGAS. Soft redirects are a useful mechanism on the project, and like normal redirects are generally going to be short because they are pointing to content elsewhere. They should not, IMHO, generally be subject to A3 speedy deletion. If you want to see my more detailed arguments on the subject, pelase check out this AFD debate on another soft redirect. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored as per your request and after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omglolwtfbbq. I was not aware of that AfD and for the record, I'm not sure I agree and would probably have opined as delete, as some others have done there, but I respect your opinion on the issue. It has now been restored. Cheers. -- Alexf⁴² 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stevens

Hi - good spot on the Ben Stevens article - I need to deal with something in RL, but will check back and assist on the article later (well tomorrow since I might be awhile and it's getting late here). --Fredrick day (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was showing up on the Short Pages reports over on the Tools server because of the blankings. The editor said the "magic words" in his edit summaries, claiming to be Steven's himself, at which point I realized I was not the right person to handle this, as I am far, far from an expert on the ins and outs of BLP. So BLPN was my next stop for assistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Memphis categories

Hi TexasAndroid, I saw you have untangled some of the messed up categories for Memphis related articles. Your help is much appreciated. I have changed one category, however. For Beale Street I I changed Category Transportation to Culture. As one of the main tourist attractions it is better sorted in there. Beale Street does not really contribute much to the transportation in Memphis. Take care! doxTxob \ ^talk 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No real problem. My main concern in these efforts is getting as many articles as possible out of the main category. I make my best judgements based on experience with similar categorizations, but I don't know the cities directly. So I have no problem if others thing of better ways to categorize thse than what I have done. The only thin I would object to would be putting them right back in the just-cleaned main city category, which is not what you did in any way. :) In general, once I have done a city once, I can come back in 3 to 6 months and much, much more quickly catch up wiht the few articles that have drifted into the main in the intervening time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably a lot of people (including me) are confused by the abundance of categories and unsure how they are nested inside each other in the hierarchy. Maybe when articles are tagged as uncategorized the tag could include the tree of categories for the one categorizing it to have options (<categorytree>Memphis, Tennessee</categorytree>). I have had the same problem myself, if you are not too familiar with categories, there might be a tendency to put it in the top level of the hierarchy because the sturcture of the categories is not immediately obvious to the casual editor. Good to know that you are planning to come back and pull more weeds out! Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

over categorization

I will read the guidelines you referenced. Thanks for the heads-up. Mgreason (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Brooke Skye

This was a while ago, so you may not remember the details, but I'd like an opinion on how to proceed. I'm asking you, since you were the most recent admin to touch the original article

To sum up, the article Brooke Skye was created and deleted multiple times. Now someone has created a similar article, titled "Brooke Skye", presumably to get around the protection. Normally I'd just delete the new article as an A7 because there's not much claim of notability, but there is a half-way decent reference, which always makes me back off a bit on the speedies.

If the article stays, it really should get moved to Brooke Skye. I'm not convinced it should stay, and I'm not convinced it should go. Any opinions?--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say userfy the badly named, but potentially useful, article to the creator's user space, and launch a WP:DRV for more opinions. My only touch of it was changing the style of WP:SALT protection, so I would really not count for reverting the protection. And if you are not certain enough of the situation to make a firm choice to override yourself, then IMHO DRV would be a good place to get a wider view of the proper course of action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio and Longcomment

Could you take a look at the discussion at WT:CP and Template talk:Copyvio? I think you have been involved in manually adding long comments and some other editors apparently think you're a bot (or else they're referring to an unidentified bot). First issue is to determine whether there is in fact a problem. If you don't currently find the load very heavy it's probably only because most editors fail to blank the page when they tag with copyvio, another issue I'm working on. The discussion has unfortunately gotten split up in the search for a response. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from redirect

I was wondering about the rationale for removing the redirect from USS Gary (DE-61). As Gary the ship was named after a Texan and would to seem to fit the category of "Texas-related" ships, but as Duckworth, its Royal Navy name, it would seem not to fit. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a while to dig up the appropriate guideline page, but in general, with a few exceptions, redirects are not supposed to have article categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The subject is covered at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Was not aware of that. Thanks for the quick response. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WantedCats

Thank you for your help - I have reorganized the subpage structure in the course of importing updated information from a new query, please check User:Random832/WantedCats for links to the new subpages. —Random832 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Been doing red-category clean-up work since long before this current effort. Mostly casually, but every now and then I make a push into Special:Categories attacking what red links I can find. Did most of the years before 2008 within the last month or so is why there are so few of those showing up on your lists. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Area category rename nominations

Can you please hold off on adding more of these? I have made a proposal to try and decide how best to address the fact that many of the categories that contain only Los Angeles are not restricted to the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stopping after Houston. I had already done all the tagging for it, so I just now finished up the actual nomination. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also stopped with the only two I planned to do since they present similar but different views of the same problem. What are your opinions on how best top deal with this? I'm sure you read my reasons for why I am now saying this class of change is bad. I know that your proposal is what the consensus in the past has been. But I now see why that consensus may well be less then ideal. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Chicago one is working out to be the possible central discussion place. Better IMHO to have the discussion there, much more in the public eye, than here on our talk pages. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Roland Nicholson

Several months ago you deleted a page called Roland Nicholson, Jr., the same editor, Sean Corrigan, recreated it again as Roland Nicholson jr, that page was deleted and now it appears that a new version exists as Roland Nicholson. The article is still as non notable as it was when you deleted it. Can you speedy delete or should I do something?Marylandstater (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone. If you see it again, feel free to tag it {{db-bio}} for speedy deletion or let me know and I'll get rid of it myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Texas Android: I am a teacher in a Carribean nation. Every spring semester my classes and those of other teachers pursue a couurse of study involving US politics. The issue of capital punishment is one of the subjects that the students must research. Roland Nicholson has been a leading and outspoken opponent of the death penalty. Was this page deleted because of politcal reasons? If there is anyway to restore it, a number of teachers and students in this country and others would be most appreciative. Thank you for you labours sir and have a good day. Guyana Barrister.

Please read WP:NOTE and WP:RS. The page was deleted for not meeting the project's standards for notability. Articles must show that the subjects are notable by the project's definitions of the term "notable". This is as standard requirement of this project, and has nothing to do with politics. Articles also need to be sourced. You need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the person's notability. That all said, I'm willing to give you the bnenefit of the doubt. I will restore the latest version of the article, but submit it to WP:AFD for a wider discussion on whether it should or should not remain on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seamen's Church Entry Refreshed ...

Better language and more precise, better formatted citations added. Please remove advertising tag.

Thanks! --BKizel (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oregon articles

		WPOR Award: Sponsored in part by the Big Gold Dude.
		You are hereby granted this shiny object for all your hard work at WikiProject Oregon! Thanks for all your work polishing the categories on articles in Oregon. You've done an impressive job. —EncMstr 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm slowly working down List of United States cities by population, and it was Portland's turn. :) Almost done with the main city category, and still going back and forth in my mind as to whether I want to work on sorting out Category:Buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon. That one really needs it, but it's complicated greatly by the fact that the category is populated mostly by a nav template, meaning that it's an all or nothing job. Either I hit everything populated by that template, getting them off of it (category population-wise, at least), or I leave the mess alone. We shall see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot. I do have a few quibbles here and there, nothing major, but when you're done check my contribs for category talk pages or if I get a minute I'll post the links. Katr67 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If I have mis-categorized anything, please, fix it. I just ask that things not be placed right back up in the main city category. Clearing that out (as much as reasonibly possible) was the goal of the whole effort. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Riverina Theatre Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Riverina Theatre Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bidgee (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO ...

Hi texasandroid. I notice that you've removed an entry for 'IMHO'. I feel that it would be helpful to have one ( a very brief explanation`) here. Could you outline your reasons against? Cooke (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal on your user page

Hope you don't mind me reverting a Vandal's edit [8] -- Bidgee (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 2)

WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT TH EINFORMATION I WROTE IS NOT A REVELANCE TO AGT IT IS THE REASON THEY TOOK OUT MOHAMMAD FAIZAN(ME)I SHOULD KNOW

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE OR FIX THE INFORMATION AGAIN I WILL GET UPSET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said on your user page. That information is irrelevant to the group's minor appearance on AGT, and does not belong on the AGT page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

man why do u seriously do this like i did nothing wrong to u and like cant a guy have some freedom man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownjjokerr (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin here. It's my role here to enforce the policies and guidelines of the project. As for Freedom, this is not your project. If you want freedom, you are perfectly free to create your own version of the project where you can set the rules. But as long as you are editing this project, you are subject to the rules and policies of this project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Show Globes

My page is on show globes. not snow globes. I am trying to write my first article for the wikipedia. I would like to make the title show globes (pharmacy) can you help me. thanks, natalie. my e-mail is kupferberg.1@osu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie kupferberg (talk • contribs)

Sorry. My bad. I misread the title. Sorry again. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{Infobox Station}}

I saw your edit to the template; I reverted it because removing px there made the rest of the transclusions break because a large number of articles didn't specify a value for image_size. HappyMelon is building a bot to remove the px from the transcluded pages. The list of affected templates is being built at WP:BOTREQ. Slambo (Speak) 18:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I may be a programmer, but I'm far from a wiki-code expert. I made a quick fix that appears to have been the wrong fix. Getting it right is the important thing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Can I ask you as an admin for some advice? I note that you have had some dealings with the above user who I have been watching for some time. He appears to be annoying just about everyone that he comes into contact with on Wikipedia with his removing of large elements of articles, continuous inappropriate tagging etc; his talk page gives only a hint of what has been happening as he deletes most of the adverse comments. Is there any legitimate action that can be taken to bring his behaviour to a conclusion? Thank you. Paste (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am likely not a good one to take admin action against him (assuming that it is needed), given my first interraction with him was an editing conflict of sorts. That all said, the normal route for dealing with problem editors goes through dispute resolution. Request for Comment and mediation are both options in trying to get resolution on issues of disruptive editors. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tribalwars Page Deletion

Im wondering if it would be possible to re-instate the page and for a member of the TW Team, such as myself, to update the page with the information you wanted on the page. I read the deletion talks and it seemed it was missing "recognition" whereas maybe back then it didn't have much, but it has a large player database, and is certainly more well known that alot of the websites listed on the Browser Based Game list so it should also be added back on that page after the page has reached the standard it needs to be, so that it is not deleted. Thankyou. --Oscardog1991 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll need the exact page name. Normal procedure for a case like this is to "userfy" the page first. A copy is placed in your user space for you to edit to bring up to snuff. Then, when you think you have it passing muster, you either get an admin to declare that it does indeed pass muster or you go to WP:DRV to get the deletion overturned by the wider community, in particular pointing out that you have a user-space version that deals with the issues from the deletion debate. Do read WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:COI. You need to provide reliable, independent, non-trivial references for it's notability. And, as for WP:COI, keep in mind that, while editing pages about your own project is not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, as it very, very often ends badly. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tribalwars i would like the code copied to my user page so that i can update it, the most recent version so that i dont have to completely remake the page. Thanks! --Oscardog1991 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been placed at User:Oscardog1991/Tribal Wars. I had to redact one of the links, as it was on the project's spam blacklist and I could not save it as-is. The link was the one titled "Tribe "Rum's" External Boards"., and I replaced the main part of the link with a number of "#" signs to get it saved.

Remember. To get an article that can remain, you need reliable, independent, non-trivial references. Each of those words is critical. MySpace is not reliable. You web sites are not independent. A list of games that happens to mention yours is not non-trivial. A full write-up or two in main-line gaming magazine(s) (and not just reprinted press releases) would cover them all, for instance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

List of billionaires

Why did you decline the speed for List of billionaires? I specifically explained in the rationale that I wanted to move List of billionaires (2008) to there so we don't have to make a new list for every year, since we shouldn't. Gary King (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry. You used the G7 template, which is only for pages that you created. I have never seen someone add additional text to the G7 template, so I was not looking out for such, and did not see your text. I just saw a G7 CSD request from someone other than the creator of the page, on a page with many incoming links, so I declined it. You wanted G6, Housekeeping as your reason. Anyway, as a G6 deletion, with you planing to move another page in there right away, I have no reason to decline it, so it is gone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

National support for Iran and/or Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War

Having noticed your suggested deletion of the U.S. support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, it's probably worth observing that this was a response of an editor to insistence, by other editors with a strong POV, in the Iran-Iraq War article. Today, after some attempt to seek consensus, I inserted a section into Iran-Iraq War dealing generally with the support of nations for Iran, Iraq, or both.

Part of doing so was an effort to seek NPOV by pointing out that many other nations were involved in supplying the two main belligerents. In my userspace (User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq), I probably have more than 30 national articles for support to one or both belligerents. The first article to move out of userspace was French support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but that was simply the first to be ready to move. Many more are coming; hopefully I will get help on the research.

Any suggestions are welcome that might reduce the edit wars and general POV in the Iran-Iraq War article. If you look at the history, you'll see that shortly after I started the "other country" section with a brief introduction for the link to the US, another editor quickly inserted additional reasons to criticize the US. I reverted those, as my intent was simply to have a sentence or so introducing links where all the arguments desired could be discussed in detail. I reverted that, and just hope it doesn't start a revert war, which has not been uncommon on that page -- one editor is now on a 31-hour block.

Thanks.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Private Investigators

This issue was dealt with last year. I removed your copyright violation notice: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Private_investigator. The work you are referring to is property of the U.S. Government that is not subject to copyright protection. See: See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government. PeetMoss (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my notice. I only fixed the template after a core change to the copyvio template. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott Dunn

Hi please let me know why the Scott Dunn page has been deleted? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDlukebeckett (talk • contribs)

Replied on the editor's talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Davies

Yes, I restored the butcher job, then someone insists on deleting all meaningful content claiming BLP - most of the stuff is unsourced, little of it really negative, her notability is marginal and stubbing it as the dude from downunder had done is a clear A7. If you want to ressurrect whatever portion is sourced that sufficiently asserts notability, feel free; otherwise, best left for other people to start without the supposed BLP problem in the visible history. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dawn Chorus deletion

Why was the Dawn Chorus information page deleted? The band are featured on the Planet Sound Wikipedia page as one of only a few bands to have achieved a 9 our of 10 score for a single. This page contains an internal link to The Dawn Chorus wikipedia page, which is blank. Surely this is reason enough to have information on The Dawn Chorus on Wikipedia?! What are the rules on this? What does it take to keep a band's information on Wikipedia?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsimpson1 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

dude don't delete my page!

I am seriously going to write an article on the novel a "the strange life of Ivan Osokin" please don't turn my page into a redirect it's going to be an article but have to give me more than one day to write it.--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. Nothing that I did prevents you from creating your page. But on this project, we simply do not do "Under Construction" pages like that. The page for the author had as much, if not more, information than the sub-stub you created, so I redirected until such a time as you have time to actually create a useful page there. It's not about what you may or may not do in the future, but about what is on the project at the current time. And "Under Construction" or "Coming Soon" pages just are not helpful. Create your page when you are ready to create your page, don't put up a place holder. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories Tagging

Hi! One of your taggings happened to intersect with my watchlist and I'm curious about the tool you used since I think it will make my life easier as I try to clean up the museums tags. Is it a bot or? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a "Gadget". Which means it's code that can be installed in most user's account. Check out the link in the edit-comment that you already pointed to. It'll take you to the home page for the tool. I only discovered it yesterday, and am really liking it. It automates category addition/removal/replacement, and leaves behind a nice auto-generated edit comment about exactly what was changed. There are still cases where "Why" the change was made is important, and is not intuitive, and the tool does nto currently help with that, but I'm already discussing that and several other possible improvements to the tool on the tool's talk page with it's writer. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just installed and am going to play. Looks as if it helps avoid adding 'wrong' (as in does not exist) categories. UI'm still learning categories that exist, so this is good. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maternity clothing

I see, that you closed the DRV. Now, the newbie editor had a point in it not really ebing irrredemable spam and also because she felt bitten [9]. So the open point is whether or not to restore the history. I'd say yes: Not a clear-cut G11. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. History restored. In a case like this, where the spam is pretty much gone from the article, I don't see much harm in having it in the history. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added to the closure the info that the previous history has been restored. Feel free to tweak or revise. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amachi

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Amachi. Please note that because an assertion of notability is made and references are provided, this article does not meet wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria, as you asserted. A simple google search reveals that the subject is quite notable (as the article states, it was conceived of by a former White House official and is directed by a former Philadelphia mayor--also a google news search reveals that the organization is mentioned frequently in news sources) and so it does not meet any of wikipedia's deletion criteria. Of course it is a stub as is and certainly needs to be built up and I would appreciate your assistance, and other editors' assistance, in that regard. Any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you! Stanley011 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello, could you explain your reasoning for these edits, along with your edits to other articles I've written dealing with Raleigh. I notice the creation of a "houses in Raleigh" cat, which is great. I don't understand why you removed the Wake County & buidling in Raleigh cats. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Overcategorization. In general, if an article is in a more specific sub-cat, then it should not also be in any of that category's parent or grand-parent categories. The Houses cat is already in the Buildings cat, so individual houses should only be in the more specific one. Similarly they are all down the category chain from the county category. The whole purpose of my efforts is to clean out the parent categories, and as much as possible push articles down into appropriate, and standardly named, sub-cats. Does that explain i well enough? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was just confusing at first since I just now realized you had created subcats for houses & museums. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: CanWest Flight Services

Hi there. You speedied this earlier today, but there was an open Afd. I just wanted to let you know I did a nonadmin close. Take care. Xymmax (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete my page either!

OK, so when the A7 speedy deletion tag was put on my page "Skewiff" there was nothing to indicate their sigificance, but that was immediately amended. Apparently being one of the foremost bands in an entire genre of music is not enough to count as significant in your book. In addition, had you followed my suggestion and checked the reference to the Wikipedia page Bush Band, you would have seen the description there (not mine) of Skewiff as one of the most significant bush bands of the 1980s.

Good day to you, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackleg Miner (talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable, independent, non-trivial references as to why the band meets the criteria listed at WP:BAND. Online sources are vastly preferable, since they can be easily checked by anyone who wants to validate the group's notability. Though online sources are preferred, they are not required. But without them, even if I did reverse my speedy deletion descision, I really doubt that the article would survive a full deletion debate are it was sourced. Wikipedia itself, for instance, is not a reliable source. You need sourcing from outside the project. Thus the reference on the Bush band article is meaningless for establishing their notability. Read the WP:BAND link, and work from there please. I would be willing to place a copy of the article in your user space, if you want, so that you can work on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii

Hi. Please do not create categories like Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii without consulting the Hawaii WikiProject. I am also fairly confident that Hawaii is not part of Texas as you seem to have categorized it here. I have serious doubts about the other categories you have created, such as Media and Economy, but before addressing those cats, I would first like to know what the purpose of a Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii cat is, and how it improves upon a Geography of Oahu cat, which serves the purpose just fine. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the Geography of Texas, that was a cut&paste error, easily fixed. It should have been in Geography of Hawaii, which it now is. As for the Geography of Honolulu cat itself, that, and the rest, are categories of scope of just the cities. Creating these allow the various entries to be categorized in the various "Foo of the US by city" categories like Category:Geography of the United States by city. The whole effort, and now we get to my core reason for doing all this, improves the city categories themselves. Instead of a category full of a hodge-podge of misc stuff that relates to a city, when I am done we have a very nicely organized city category with very few articles left at the top level directly. Without sub-categorization, you could have potentially hundreds of articles right in the city category. With it, they are now neatly sorted down in the subs.

As for the specific sub-categories I use, those are standard. The same sub-categories exist (or will eventually exist) for most every city in the US, and many outside the US. "Media in Fooville" and "Economy of Fooville" are two of the standard city sub-cats. Check out Category:Economies by city and Category:American media by market for lists of other cities with the same sub-cats. The one ongoing debate is whether the sub-cats should all be named with or without the state name, but that's a naming debate, not an existence debate.

Finally, as for project consulting, I believe I will pass. I am done with Honolulu, except for re-checks months or years down the road for the inevitable new articles that always migrate back into the main city cats, so consulting with the Hawaii project is kinda moot. As for the general idea of having to consult with various projects for the hundreds of cities that I have before me to slowly get cleaned up.... sorry, but no. If I had to deal with that level of bureaucracy, then this would never get done. And I have, over the time I have been doing this, received a couple of barnstars from similar Wikiprojects, after the fact, thanking me for cleaning up their city categories. So there are definitely other state projects that appreciate the efforts being made. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who gave you the idea that the purpose of categorization is to remove everything from the top-level and hide it away into small subcategories, but it's wrong. I know that people like Hmains have been perpetuating this misinformation for several years, and as a result of their tens of thousands of edits, it is now currently impossible to browse and navigate categories in any way. In other words, the "goal" of reducing categories to subcategories has not improved Wikipedia, but rather worsened it. I feel that some editors have completely lost sight of the forest for the trees. This is not a MMORPG where you "win" by putting articles into categories. There is a great deal of thought that needs to go into categorization, and by not consulting the relevant WikiProjects you are pretending that you know better than everyone else. I cannot see a single benefit to a Category:Geography of the United States by city category, which aside from duplicating already existing categories, makes it more difficult to navigate articles. Have you stopped to think for a moment how editors use the encyclopedia? As someone who has been working on Hawaii-related articles and categorization for many years, tell me, what benefit does Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii offer? Looking at it right now, I must say, I cannot think of a single reason to have this category. Can you? I can't even understand why you've put articles into this category. Again, the problem is people going around creating categories without putting any thought into it. What we are left with are hundreds of useless categories that make it more difficult to find information. Why should I support this? I also find it ironic that you complain about bureaucracy when asked to discuss your category scheme, while at the same time expecting everyone to follow a centralized category scheme from the top-down that has no actual benefits and does not serve to improve access to information in any way. You're right about one thing; I do not appreciate the fragmentation of information that gets hidden away into smaller and smaller subcategories that nobody uses. Are you serious when you tell me that every city is going to have Geography, Media, Economy and other subcats? That's plain absurd, and more so in terms of an island. If Hawaii needs geography cats, it needs them by island, not by city. But, you didn't stop to think about this, and you've made it clear that you don't care what anyone else thinks unless there's a barnstar dangling at the end of it. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

<Outdent> Wow. Your throwing the barnstar bit back in my face like that is either a major failure of WP:AGF, if you truly believe that I am motivated in the slightest by barnstars, or a failure of WP:NPA if you do not, and are just tossing it at me in order to groundlessly attack my motives. You know nothing about my motives in all of this, and really have no place in making such false assumptions about them. It's also hard to see how it is productive to launch such attacks on another editor's motives, and editor who you are supposed to be trying to persuade to your point of view. Does attacking my motives really seem like a good way to get me to see things your way?

I mentioned the barnstars to make the point that there are others who agree with the way I am handling these things. Agree to the point of feeling that they need to take an extra step in showing their appreciation of the efforts. I mentioned it to illustrate how other people feel over the issue. No more, no less. To then twist that mention around to disparage my motives... a pretty low blow in general. After you have sunk to that level, I have to wonder if there is much chance that this conversation can come to a productive outcome, or if it is likely to continue to sink with personal attacks on my motives. We shall see. I will attempt though to redirect the discussion to the issues at hand, and would please ask that you leave either of our motives out of it. I know of no reason to think that either of us are other than well intentioned contributors here, who happen to disagree on a issue.

So back to the issues.

You are the first person I have seen raise the kinds of objections that you have raised. I see the categories as useful from an organizational and structural point of view, you obviously do not. The structure I am using was not started by me, but I have come along and worked to help put it into place. But prior to a couple of days ago, no one had objected in the slightest to the effort overall, as you have now done. (There is a side-issue that does regularly get questions, but I have yet to have a case where the questioner has not stepped aside once they get a fuller explanation. This has to do with removal of categories for overcategorization, and can be seen discussed a few sections above this.) Given the total lack of objections, and the fact that I am implementing what is effectively a standard across many, many cities, there is really no way I could have been expected to think that any sort of consultation was needed in the slightest. Going forward, well, I'll get back to that.

I'm going to try to get down to the core of your objections, but this will require in part making assumptions from what you have already said, and that is always prone to trouble. So please, do correct me if I'm incorrect in any of my assessments of your position in the next few paragraphs. I really see two separate, but interconnected issues in your objections. You appear to have a blanket objection to the subcategorization, and then you have specific problems with specific subcategories in the city structure.

It appears to me that your objection is not with sub-categorization overall, but rather is an argument of degree of subcategorization. If you track the main Honolulu category back up it's chain of parents, you get eventually to Category:Geography. I doubt that you are arguing that all articles currently in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii should actually be placed up in Category:Geography. But if you are truly against sub-categorization, then that would be the logical end result, because everything under Category:Geography is actually sub-categorization of Category:Geography. So I'm assuming here that you are not really against sub-categorization in general, as that would lead to effectively no categories at all, but are rather objecting specifically to the degree of sub-categorization occurring. Should the subcategorization end with Category:Honolulu, Hawaii, or continue with the articles actually further down? And here we obviously have a major difference of opinion. My opinion is that the categorization should not stop at the city level, but actually should continue to place the articles down within groupings that reflect different aspects of the city. Sports. Buildings. Education. Even the geography that you disparage so much. Together these serve to make the city categories nicely organized, where if there was no sub-categorization of the city, all of the articles would be clumped together in the main Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. A quick scan of it's sub-cats shows that there are up to 340 articles about Honolulu in one way or another. (Almost certainly less, because that "quick scan" does not take into account articles that are in multiple Honolulu sub-cats, and would count those twice or more.) I'm not sure if you are arguing that all 300+ articles should actually be placed directly in Category:Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's actually not that large a number for a city. Other cities have many, many more. That such a large category could actually be considered more navigable than a neatly sorted set of sub-categories.... I just do not see it. And if you are not suggesting that possibility, then we are really back to arguing degrees of sub-categorization, rather than arguing about the basic idea of whether things should or should not be sub-categorized. Not much more I can say on the general issue until you clarify just where you do stand on the issue. Are you truely against sub-categorization in general, or are we really more debating what degree of sub-categorization is appropriate?

But I can still give some opinions on the issue of specific categories with which you have a problem. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii is obviously one that particularly offends you, so I'll address it specifically. You call it useless, I disagree. First off, it serves to get a selection of articles out of the main city category. Obviously you discount this as a reason, but I (and others) just as obviously disagree. This relates directly back to the previous paragraph, and the question of whether it's good to have a city category with hundreds of articles in it, or just a few sub-cats directly in it. I feel that the latter is much more clean and navigable, as opposed to having to scan through a list of hundreds of articles to find the ones I want, with no real clues about what each article is about beyond then having some connection to the city. And this brings up my second use for the sub-cats, in that they give that extra context to the articles. Are they just Honolulu articles? No. They are People from Honolulu. Or buildings. Or cultural articles. Etc. Category:Geography of Honolulu, Hawaii fits into here. It's an intersection category, showing those articles about Honolulu that also have to do with Geography in one way or another. And for the city geography categories, the geography aspect has to do with either the physical features of the city (Sand Island (Hawaii), Punchbowl Crater, or Honolulu Harbor), or with how mankind has divided up the land into parks and neighborhoods (Category:Neighborhoods in Honolulu, (Fort DeRussy (Hawaii), Kyoto Gardens of Honolulu Memorial Park). So it has indeed grouped the articles that are connected by their being about Honolulu, into a tighter connection about being about the Geography of Honolulu. Finally, by grouping them like this, they can be placed under Category:Geography of the United States by city. You may disparage this way of organizing articles as useless, but again I must disagree. Just because you do not see yourself ever navigating about the geography of different cities does not mean that someone else may not at some point find such an option highly useful.

Arguing for the Economy and Media sub-cats would be similar, so I'll not go into details there at this time.

As for the issue of sub-categorizing by islands verses by city, I don't really see those two goals as being at conflict. Nothing says that articles that have scope inside and outside the city cannot be in categories for both the city and the island. If the article has scope just inside the city, then it is already covered by the fact that Category:Honolulu, Hawaii is in Category:Oahu. So everything within the city category, whether directly in it or down in the sub-cats, is covered by Category:Oahu. Pushing articles down to sub-cats of Category:Honolulu, Hawaii does not change this. So I guess I'm not really seeing the problem. The articles are all parented/grand-parented/etc by the appropriate island category already.

Ok. That leaves the issue of what to do, moving forward. I will halt for the moment my city sub-categorization efforts. I will seek a place to start a centralized discussion on the whole issue, and invite the various state wikiprojects to the debate. I'll need to check if I would get into any trouble with WP:SPAM or more likely WP:CANVAS by posting 50+ discussion notices to the state projects. I think a centralized debate is much, much more effective than debating this separately in 50+ different state projects.

As for what you can do, if you truly, truly believe that the Geography, Media and Economy categories for Honolulu are useless, then I would encourage you to nominate them for deletion at WP:CFD. Or if you want to go all out on this, nominate Category:Geography of the United States by city for deletion. I say this, fully expecting that, if you do so, you will find that the opinions on the usefulness of these articles will run strongly against your point of view. But I could very well be wrong, and my own track record on deletion nominations if far from 100% success, so my opinions/expectation of what will/won't be deleted is far, far from perfect. Either way, it would be an interesting way to gauge general opinion on these types of categories. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the canvasing issue here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I spend time writing a near-essay in response to the criticisms, and I get... nothing in response. Very well. If I still have no response in another day or so I will consider the issue closed for now and consider myself free to resume city category clean-up work. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Selected environmental anniversaries/September 1

I notice that you deleted Selected environmental anniversaries/September 1 since I marked the edit summary as a test. It was a test and as it stood it functioned as a stub and was a start to a series of articles. Can you please reinstate it? Thank you. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but test pages are simply not acceptable on the project. If you want to test in the sandbox, or in your user space, then OK. But test articles in the main project space are no good. Beyond that, you are going to have a problem with the naming of the article. We generally do not name articles on the project with a "/" in them as you have done. I'll try to look up the relevant style guideline tomorrow if you want me to do so, but still, you will need a different name for your series of articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpages (those with a "/") are used on the portals as well as archives and a few other instances. I neglected to add the portal name to the redlinks in the template. I have now changed it. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is connected to a portal and/or WikiProject, should it not then be in Wikipedia namespace, not article namespace? I agree that there are a number of uses of "/" in page names outside of article space, but beyond a few technical uses (/temp pages) and for matching real world names that contain slashes, I don't think we are supposed to have slash named articles in article space. I'll try to find the relevant style guideline this morning. That still leaves the fact that test pages are not supposed to be done in article space. Speedy deletion criteria G2 exists for them specifically. Looking a bit more at {{Selected environmental anniversaries}}, I can see a bit of what you are actually trying to do, but I think that you are going to really have problems here even if you solve the naming issue. (And I have slashed my first statement above, as I can now see that this is indeed an article-space effort, but I've not deleted it to leave context for the second sentence.) 366 different articles for separate dates for such a specialized situation? I can see the whole thing ending up at a mass AFD, with objections to it being too specialized, and to it setting a bad precedent. If we start splintering subjects by date, how many 366-article sets will we soon have on different subjects? Just my thoughts on the whole thing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Symphony in Three Movements (ballet)

Thank you for deleting Symphony in Three Movements (ballet). — Robert Greer (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Worshipful Company of Security Professionals

I don't agree with your A7 deleting of Worshipful Company of Security Professionals - all the other 107 Livery Companies have Wikipedia entries. Eventualism should prevail in this case and the article be recreated. Thoughts? Psu256 (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reversed. Don't know if it would survive AFD, but I'll accept being recognized as a Livery Company as, at the least, and assertion of notability, which is enough to invalidate the A7 speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Hopefully it can be expanded with some meaningful content. I've found a few news articles about their application that I can reference. I'll see what I can come up with. :) Psu256 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Goth and Throbb

I'd bet a week's pay you're right. I'll start reverting what edits haven't been already reverted. Time to shut this little monkey down; he's a fourteen-karat pest. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• You got him. Thanks. I took a moment to swing by the original account and it's open. Could you take a moment and block it as well? Thanks for the update. I've rolled back quite a few of his edits, but I don't have the admin rights anymore and I'll have to do them one at a time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that mass-reversions in this case may be a bit overkill. I really don't consider him your typical banned user. He has an easy and simple way to stop from being regularly blocked: just start communicating. As for your comments about the "original account", I'm not really sure what you mean. Is there an older account from before User:Goth and Throbb99 that I am not aware of? All five of the accounts that I am aware of belonging to him, including the User:Goth and Throbb99 account which is the original as far as I know, are indef blocked already. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly writing this for my own tracking purposes. Pretty sure that he's back, this time as User:Clover08. Clover has all the same areas of interest as the previous accounts, first edited four days after the last account was blocked, and has a similar lack of communication. This account has, nowever, made a couple of talk page edits, and has not (yet) built up a talk-page log of complaints like his previous accounts. So I'm not going to block this one yet, but will continue to keep an eye on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:1998 in Champ Car

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1998 in Champ Car, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1998 in Champ Car has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1998 in Champ Car, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Automagically

My error. Someone had added the definition to the soft redirect -- I should have reverted rather than deleting. I will do that now. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice to see someone else working in the cleaning up of the Education related categories. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This is in a way more a subset of my category with on cities than specifically education work, though it is currently ending up being education work. I'm finishing up the High Schools in CA category currently. No idea what I'll go after next, though. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The categorization of Wikipedia has become so massive it seems to be somewhat out of control. And of course the discussion of intersection may end up changing everything. Since you are working with cities, you may what to take a look at my question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Coastal cities in the United States. Carcharoth response went way over my head. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Someone else did a good bit of work overnight, and I finished up today. Category:High schools in California is down to 20 articles directly in it. The remaining articles are either schools in counties with only one or two high school articles, making them too small for their own "HS by Foo County" category, or a few other misc oddballs including some HS sports organizations that IMHO likely do not belong in there, but I don't really know where they *do* belong. Given that Category:High schools in California was over 800 articles a couple of days back, I feel good about this progress. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Work. One thought to make it better. Create a new category Category:High Schools in California by city and move all of the individual city categories into it. As it is now the counties are not listed idividually but the cities are, seems a bit off balanced. What do you think? Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the new category and populating it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Working on Florida schools at the moment. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Another suggestion, under Category:Schools in the United States what about added the new category Category:Schools in the United States by state? Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, if you want it, I would say go for it. I'm looking at other things to work on for the moment, sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and no problem. It was not actually meant as a request for you to do it, but rather as a question as to should it be done. I am still not sure of the procedure for making new categories. Get approval first? Be bold and do it? I have no problem doing it myself, just trying to learn the rules. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Villa Park High School

Hi. Not complaining, but why did you remove the category "high schools in california" from this article? Loren.wilton (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Category:High schools in California was removed from Villa Park High School is that it belongs in Category:High schools in Orange County, California, which is a sub category of Category:High schools in California. Placing articles in both the child and parent category is not the current practice. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FOAD

Did you un-delete it or something? Anyways, the article barely has any content, and we don't need an article for each article on Wikitionary. It's really just a useless article. I nominated it for G6 because I thought we should delete the contentless article. Although I oppose you're decision to undelete it, you're the admin so I give. Yamakiri ^T_C § 04-22-2008 • 19:28:23

FOAD is a soft redirect. These are something of a grey area as to which deletion rules they fall under. My personal opinion is that they should fall under the redirect speedy deletion rules. But the few times I have tried to get a discussion going about clarifying the issue, few others have bothered to comment.

But even so, from your description, you are more describing an A3 (no content) deletion, not G6. G6 (Housekeeping) just does not cover this. And as for A3, I strongly oppose the use of A3 speedy for soft redirects. All soft redirects are minimal content by their very nature. To allow A3 speedy deletion to be used for soft redirects puts every one of them subject to such deletion. To allow this to happen in general puts every soft redirect under a cloud of potential deletion at short notice. And I just disagree with this. A3 does not apply to regular redirects, and IMHO it should not apply to soft redirects either.

Really, my being an admin has little to do with this. But I do feel strongly enough about this that I will take any A3 deletion to WP:DRV, arguing that they should not be A3 speedy deleted. It has not come to this yet, but maybe if it does at some point I can finally get a consensous one way or the other as to how these should be handled.

If you have another reason why a soft redirect should be deleted, then go for it. I have watched a number of them get deleted because they have nothing at their destination. In essence an R1 deletion, though these were mostly done by PROD. There are other possible deletion reasons for these things that do not set precedent for deletion of every one of them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want the article so bad that you have to write an essay about it I'm not going to press the matter, I just felt the article is useless because it barely has any content. Yamakiri ^T_C § 04-23-2008 • 00:25:25

I also feel like it's a waste to have articles that just redirect to Wikitionary. Most of the regular people (that aren't users) are probably too lazy to click the link to Wikitionary... In my opinion the entire category "Redirects to Wikitionary" is a huge waste, but you're the admin... Yamakiri ^T_C § 04-23-2008 • 00:28:58

I'll repeat that my being an admin has nothing to do with anything in this situation.

In the end, for both of us it appears, this is not really about the FOAD article, but about soft redirects in general. I think they are useful, and stand on principle against actions that attack them at a core aspect of their nature, you dislike them. If I ever manage to get a true debate on them running, I know where you will be. But so far, when I have tried to get debates running, almost noone has seemed to care either way.

But until/unless that debate actually happens and decides to do away with them in general, they are in widespread use, and I plan to continue to defend their existance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturalisation in Australia

As you may have noticed, I've come to the party on this. I'm wrapping up most "naturalised in" categories, and replacing them with lists like List of mammals of South Australia and/or category notes such as those on Category:Mammals of South Australia and Category:Mammals of Western Australia. I actually still think they were good categories, but there's so much to do here that there doesn't seem much point in arguing over stuff that doesn't have everyone's full support.

But there's something that concerns me a bit. Firstly, I think that Category:Biota naturalised in Australia should be retained so that there is a place to put Brumby, Rabbits in Australia, Australian feral camel, List of placental mammals introduced to Australia, List of introduced fish in Australia, List of common weeds of Queensland, Invasive species in Australia, and such articles. I don't want to end up wasting my time at WP:DRV opposing overzealous speedy deleters who can't comprehend that there might be a reason for retaining a category voted for deletion. And secondly, I want to work through these categories myself, depopulating them as I create the lists, so that no information is lost. I don't want to log in one morning and find that a bot has deleted the lot. For those two reasons I would very much prefer it if the CfD went away now. It has served its purpose, and I see only threats in the continuation of the process. Think you might be willing to withdraw it? (By all means do so "with prejudice")

Hesperian 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now the debate is at 4 delete, 3 keep. Firmly in NC teritory. I cannot officially withdraw it once there are other delete opinions, but I could change my own.

Two interesting points that I have seen in the debate. First is Red Fox, which is already what I feared Cat could become. The second is Category:Cosmopolitan species, which could be an (at least) partial solution to much of this situation. I'm going to stop this here, and instead comment on the CFD debate, as that will keep the discussion centralized. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realised we all missed something in the discussion the article Feral cat, is where the tag should have been placed, its linked to the cat article as a see main at the top of the Feral cat section but lost because of the unsourced template. Gnangarra 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think, though, that Feral cat would be subject to just as many problems as Cat would be. Changing the object that is a problem does not remove the problem. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Myst Articles

Hey there. Thank you for your help regarding those Myst articles! The restored page should be very helpful when rewriting these pages.

I was wondering, though, what the pages Tomahna and Chroma'Agana were redirecting to. Could you please add that information to the deletion review page so that there is a easily accessible record of that information? Thank you again for your help! — OranL (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, TexasAndroid! Your contributions are greatly appreciated, and you have been most helpful! — OranL (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Memphis Symphony Chorus speedy deletion

You did a speedy delete to the entry for the Memphis Symphony Chorus, which is the prominent chorus in the city. This is my first entry, was there something I did not include or should remove from the text? There are other city choruses on wiki and I tried to style the writing after their entries, why did my entry not work for you? We have been written up in the 2 major papers in the city, and performed a world premiers of major vocal work which seems to meet the notibilty standard. Thanks, terronshoe. Terronshoe (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Basically, you need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references for it's notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Adams sources

• History of ASHRAE http://www.ashrae.org/docLib/20070222_historyofashrae.pdf

(this is from a national organization (the organization) of Mechanical Engineers... Mr. Adams' history is well documented because there is a scholarship for mechanical engineering students that has been endowed in his name - the Henry Adams scholarship or fellowship - I am in no way affiliated with them and am not a recipient of the prize)

• Providing Outstanding Service For Over 100 Years http://www.henryadams.com/history.htm

(this is from the history page of the 110 year old firm that was begun by Mr. Adams - of which I am in no way affiliated)

• O. E. Adams, Sr., Dies At 78; Architect's Services Today, article from The Sun, Baltimore, Wednesday Morning, January 31, 1968.

(this is from the obituary of Mr. Henry Adams son - which was published in the Baltimore Sun Newspaper - of which I am in no way affiliated)

• American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1980. Mechanical Engineers in America Born Prior to 1861: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
• Calvert, Monte A. 1967. The Mechanical Engineer in America, 1830-1910: Professional Cultures in Conflict. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• Ferguson, Eugene S. 1992. Engineering and the Mind's Eye. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Sinclair, Bruce. 1980. A Centennial History of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1880-1980. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

--Teda13 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Making it work on the inside; Engineering: For 100 years, Henry Adams Inc. has made some of the finest structures in the mid-Atlantic region function properly.;Shanon D. Murray. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.: Apr 26, 1998. pg. 1.F; Making it work on the inside; Engineering: For 100 years, Henry Adams Inc. has made some of the finest structures in the mid-Atlantic region function properly.; Shanon D. Murray. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.: Apr 26, 1998. pg. 1.F - - ProQuest document ID: 29147560 --Teda13 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Report of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization under joint resolution of Senate and House of January 29, 1892, submitted by Mr. Stump. Ordered to be printed July 28, 1892. page 574-577.--Teda13 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)...the hotlink seems to take you to the beginning of the testimony on page 570 / be sure to scroll down to 574 where Adams' discussion of the systems he designed for Ellis Island begin. --Teda13 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi ;-) Thank you for your good working adding and sorting categories. I appreciate your help on the Lexington, Kentucky related articles. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

David M. Young, Jr.

You deleted David M. Young, Jr. and wrote:

18:29, 14 April 2008 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "David M. Young, Jr." ‎ (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) (restore)

But the article clearly had an assertion of notability indicating the importance of the person. It said

known for the SSOR method.

And the link worked.

You should not deleted articles that assert significance on the putative grounds that they do not assert significance merely because the article is very short. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I hope this doesn't get to be a regular thing again. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How <sarcasm>nice</sarcasm> of you to take your failure to WP:AGF public before even giving me a chance to respond. So be it, I will respond there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on sorting Fort Wayne, Indiana categories. - Davodd (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Slowly working my way down List of United States cities by population. ~70 cities done, far too many still to go. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit of Jewish Music

Thank you for your contribution to the article on Jewish Music. However, I followed the link to the reference you gave for your contention that "Many Orthodox Jews insist their children listen to music produced only by other Orthodox Jews, so that their children will not be influenced by harmful outside ideas." I found no reference in the article to Orthodox Jews, and nothing to support this statement.

If you cannot show me a source for this statement, I will remove it.

I am putting this comment on the talk page of Jewish Music as well.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Later: Aha, I see that this is not your addition, you were only reverting what appeared to you as vandalism. My apologies for my somewhat testy comments. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Omaha categories

I notice you're editing a lot of Omaha-related categories, and I understand this is probably just an automated approach to standardizing a lot of discrepancy. All the same, I want to alert you to a page that may be useful to you, which is a listing of all categories related to Omaha. I hope you hack away at all of them, and I promise to name categories correctly from here out. • Freechild'sup? 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to this inconsistancy of the naming would be a WP:CFD mass rename nomination of the non-standard ones. See my response to the poster in the section just below who has a similar situation for a different city. As I offered for him, if you would like assistance in assembling such a mass nomination, just ask. One of the benefits of such mass nomination are that, assuming it passes, at the end all the category move busy-work is done by a bot, and you do not need to move the articles from old category to new category one by one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

category renaming

I see. Well. there are many similar name changes in the pipe for articles in Chicago and other cities. It's just that I've encountered incredibly few editors in the St. Louis article series, that it is surprising when anybody notices what I'm doing. I was just trying to create a uniform standard across the categories. I do see some more moves in the future. Before I do that, I will drop you a line so you can teach me about this bot thingy. :o) I do appreciate the input and I do not mean to offend anyone. DaronDierkes (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in helping me work out a format, I've created a rough guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/Education. I'm going to do it for all the St. Louis categories soon enough. Where possible I'm trying to make the categories fit with those for the State of Illinois and the state of Missouri. One regular problem is that St. Louis is not actually a part of St. Louis county being something of a county all to its own like Baltimore. So there's a lot of confusion and outright dishonesty to labelling things "st. louis" when they are actually from a nearby county. So I'm making county categories too. I know I'm complicating things a lot, but it is a more factual this way and there is a clear framework to build from as opposed to putting UM-St. Louis under Education in St. Louis, Missouri (when if fact it is not in St. Louis, Missouri). I am making a lot of categories for categories... which seems kind of excessive, but it does cut down on the amount of cats on the individual articles, which is better for the average user. The Greater St. Louis category is more helpful I think than the one for st. louis city when it comes to looking at the actual urban culture and environment, so I'm using it as the focus for the whole wikiproject (which is really just me and like two other editors who usually focus on other things). Do talk to me, and I'll look at your talk page often looking for input. i'd love to hear your opinion. DaronDierkes (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand what you are doing, having spent the last few months doing city category cleanup work. I'm more a generalist on it though, working through city after city trying to get things looking generally nice, then moving on to the next city. I'm pretty sure I hit SL a while back as well. :) My complaint is about the method of manual renames, not the goals/objectives.

As for Chicago, I mass-nominated that city's categories for standardization a month or two ago. The nomination went down to No Consensus over a combination of objections to the general rename structure, and a few who objected to the specific Chicago renamings. It's in good part because of this potential for objections that such renames really need to be worked properly through WP:CFD. OTOH, if you want to get St. Louis bulk renamed, it's only a bit of work to mass nominate all the non-standard names. Then, assuming that the rename is not defeated, a week or two later a bot will do all the actual category moves, and it'll all be done. You can see some of these mass renames here, here, and here for the failed Chicago rename debate.

So basically, for a mass rename, you need to A) tag all the affected categories, then B) assemble and post the rename debate at the current day's CFD page. If you would like to try one of these with the SL categories, I can assist you in assembling it.

As for the scoping of categories for city vs metro area... you are getting into one of the key areas of opposition to the renames as they are currently done. Look at some of the debates I linked to above, and particularly to the comments of Vegaswikian, as city vs metro area scoping of these categories is one of his big issues. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, so my work does look pretty obvious on that lsit. As I see it, the categories are arbitrary creations anyway, the only reason that they have stayed in force so long under bogus names is that there is a structural support in place that makes them difficult to move. The articles are linked to it, not it to the articles. Why not make use of the individual discussion pages?

The categories were made by individuals though and the point of this site is to use the Wisdom of Crowds or power of Wikinomics. If we no longer have the ability to move things about, then those areas of the system will not grow. People will object that there is only one Chicago and that it is stupid to say that something is in Chicago, Illinois and and not just Chicago when everybody knows exactly where Chicago is. The problem, is that Chicago is a regional word if it isn't followed by Illinois. In that case, something can be in Chicago when it is actually in Gary, Indiana. It is fine if we want to say that as long as we know we are talking about Gary, Indiana.

Anyway, i'm going to continue doing what I have been doing, more or less. I'll try to work within the bounds of what I have already done and not overstep the bureaucracy. Though I have to tell you, when those bots move all the articles, I'm sure that many of them will have to be moved again anyway simply for being in the county and not the city. I'll try to look over all these pages you have linked here and see if I can strengthen your voice there. DaronDierkes (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)