User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2011

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vegaswikian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Does relisting require an addional waiting period, or would you close this by moving to (U.S. politician) as the only commentor suggested? 75.204.34.145 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Need to find out where consensus is. Category:North Carolina Democrats uses several forms of disambiguation, so it is not clear which form is the preferred choice. But no, it does not have to wait the full 7 days if there is a clear consensus. Right now, there is no consensus and there is no urgency to move this since nothing is hurt by a lack of a decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added it at the U.S. Congress project wiki the same day I requested it; the consensus seems to be that no one feels the desire to input; on the current and incoming members, style is simplest which disambiguates. Of the NC politicians, the jurist is not germane, and the politics seems likely for AfD; the others fall under 1) politician, which is not preferred as stated, 2) congessman which covers the immediate future, 3) U.S. politician, which is more likely to conflict before congressman but succeeds in the interim 4) North Carolina, which might conflict at some point and necessitate NC politician/North Carolina politician, which are both seen there (or to 2 or 3, above). But again, out of 640 current/incoming Sen/Reps he is the only American politician, which indicates it is not the preferred style. You're absolutely right that there is no urgency, but waiting indefinitely for nothing to improve when no one else is interested seems pointless. Not an attack, I just hate waiting. 75.202.142.52 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that Visitor attractions are found under Tourism and then under Economy, but the casual Wikipedia visitor would not be likely to find it under such a tree. I believe that visitor attractions in a state are one of the more popular items of information that someone might look for about a state. The category also combines many different types of attractions that are otherwise found in very different categories, like museums, parks, sports venues, entertainment venues, etc. I believe that adding it to the top level of each state will help users find it more easily. Jllm06 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where? It starts north of Sunshine Valley, then meets the Skagit River north of Ross Lake; not in Washington, SFAIK....maybe you were confused by Hike796's addition of "watersheds of Puget Sound" category. It is (so long as Skagit Bay is part of the sound, I'm not sure - User:Pfly put the specific boundares on the Puget sound article...that watershed category may' 'be being applied to "watersheds of the Puget Sound region", which sin't the same thing...?Skookum1 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegas. Since you were the administrator, I presume, who moved the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions to its new title Wikipedia:Article titles, you may be interested in the thread I've opened at the village pump. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Airline codes/All has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that page still required? I just saw this but I wasn't sure if it was in use for something. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll delete it then if it's not being used. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 03:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.   TRBP  talk  18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should revisit the naming of this article. John Deere is the biggest brand of Deere & Company. Being the article mentions John_Deere#Subsidiaries_and_affiliates, a rename (again) might be in order. The sign out front the world headquarters main entrance does in fact say "Deere & Company". CTJF83 chat 05:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just implementing the consensus. If you believe that there is a better name for the article, you are free to propose that. Sometimes the best option takes a while to surface. However, keep in mind that the focus is the parent company and that may mean that the current name is the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The parent company is Deere & Company, not John Deere. CTJF83 chat 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in Talk:John_Deere#Requested_move_2 CTJF83 chat 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello - someone moved Le Duc Tho to a new title with diacritics - and a hyphen, which nobody in the talk page had ever discussed. How does one undo that? Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again - Thanks for moving the page. However, now Balboa Park (San Diego) redirects to a redirect page of itself. The talk page is fine. Thanks again for the move. Dohn joe (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{fact}} tag you placed in the intro wasn't needed. The fact that the center includes the 500th Buffalo Wild Wings is verified later in the article, so it doesn't need to be verified again in the intro. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you're an admin and are active in WP:AIRPORT, may I invite you to take a look at User:Felipealvarez? He will not follow the common practice and has been warned too many times. Please look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports too. Thank you! HkCaGu (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. At least we have a start. We're kind of in between a rock and a hard place as he is slow and although being told the same thing by everyone else about all the Wikiproject standards (especially on European city/airport listing), he doesn't care. We've raised it in Project talk and reverted him many times with explanation and he didn't care. Even reports to AIV were turned down because admins there don't see the slow/long term problem. HkCaGu (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. I think Felipealvarez has legitimate concerns about the Airport articles, and I don't think he should have been blocked. It's true he doesn't engage in discussion as often as he should, but his edits do not warrant a block - he appears to have good intentions. Mlm42 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Beside the unwillingness to have a basic respect for the Wikiproject and its members (way beyond a final level 4 warning), he also did 3RR in 24 hours. Whatever his intention was, it wasn't good. HkCaGu (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. He was blocked for readding citation needed tags. If I may quote Jimmy Wales: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

Felipealvarez refused to allow the removal of citation needed tags, and now he has been blocked for it. This is a shame. Mlm42 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit warring. While the specific issue may have been the citation needed tags, that was not the reason for blocking. Any edit warring when it is clear that the issue should be discussed on the talk page is going to result in an action. At this point, let's see what happens when the block is lifted. My hope is that the difference of opinions can be resolved on a talk page and not in article space. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Links to Coming Home have been corrected, mostly to Coming Home (film). It should now be possible to move Coming Home (disambiguation) to the base title. Powers ^T 20:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good morning,

If you think we can bump up the article, then can you do it, rate the article new or let him re-assessing, but he met more than the C standard, if at all, even as a starter-class-article. He needs eventually a tag for more references and needs attention to the clearance about the rivalry between colle and fio. I hope you can help, to make the article a little more interesting, even inside some work, if the association is not more lucrative. ;)

Oh and sorry for my worst english, i am german. :) Abani79 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Tomorrow I will check the "what links here" of the "toolbox" and correct what is necessary. Thanks again. Kind regards, -- Berkh (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Please know that I have only been adding extra categories like Airports in Fresno County, California when there are a larger number of them. In Fresno County, for example, there are 9 airports that have articles, which I believe warrants its own category. I do not mean to over-categorize, but sometimes these additional sub-categories are useful. Also, regarding the category Visitor attractions in a state, I strongly feel that this should also be shown in the top category of each state and not just under Tourism in each state, which then gets hidden under Economy. I believe that most Wiki visitors would not automatically make that connection. Thus, I will continue to add Visitor attractions to the top state level. Jllm06 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the requested move on this page. You moved the article but didn't close the RM and it would also appear that someone tried to relist it but got it wrong by putting the relist after the original requested. I'd leave it to you to decide what's best to do. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Completed in 1602? That will be a surprise to Emperor Antoninus Pius!  :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you are one of (possibly currently the only) admin regularly closing RMs could you take a look at this user's closures. I've left them a note at their talk page which explains my concerns in more detail, including examples. In short I think they're getting closures wrong and I'm not sure they should be closing anything given their relative inexperience. Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that - obviously things have developed since I left the message above but your input is still much appreciated. As you may have noticed by now I've been closing some RMs which I think it's reasonable for a non-admin to close so I have a pretty good idea of what's waiting to be closed and if I see any more suspect closes I'll definitely let you know. Dpmuk (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the huge backlog I suggest good faith non-admin closures by experienced editors in good standing who know and understand relevant policy, guidelines and conventions should not only be tolerated but encouraged. However, the closures by Mac86 are not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No objection to that. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, We had long discussion at Talk:Drmbon since December 11 (with active phase starting on January 4), and yesterday I summed up the discussion to approach a final consensus. However now, when you have archived the discussion, I wonder if I should launch a new one to try to get the consensus. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response ([1]). You mention that there was no consensus for moving, but there wasn't also consensus on support for the current situation. The updated summary of arguments was aimed at having some final phase of the discussion with some consensus. I'd like to insist on continuing the discussion, but would like to be sure you are OK with it and that I would not violate any rules with that. Would appreciate very much your response. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the opposition to Talk:Pay Money to My Pain#Move is based in incorrect application of the various guidelines. It has been made clear at discussions at WT:MOS (in the most recent archive) that WP:MOSTM has been inappropriately applied in these situations, and in fact the current location of the page is in violation of said guideline.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Another issue WP:MOSTM does that override WP:COMMONNAME? Given that there was no support for the move, consensus does not exist for the move. Consensus can change over time, and this could indicate that where you feel you had support from the MOS, you don't really. I'll add that WP:MOSTM is not really about songs, which leaves using this to say keeping this page at it's current is wrong a weak argument. Also a talk page is not the same as a policy page. If a discussion there really has the broad consensus needed to change the policy then the policy need updating. I did scan the discussion you pointed to in this discussion but as far as I was concerned, it was not going to override consensus on the nomination page. You could seek a review of my decision, but I don't know what the correct venue would be. But given the strength of those in opposition and their application of other policies, I suspect that my decision to not change would be upheld. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Something apparently went oddly wrong with the City of Brisbane move. When I went there this morning it had no revisions and was a redirect to itself. Not a problem as I fixed it, but thought I should let you know in case it had happened elsewhere. Orderinchaos 06:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the various "war" CFDS/CFRs I'd tagged awhile back. That was before the first batch got objected to at speedy and led to the top-level cat's CFD (which was successful, followed by speedying the subcats on the way down); I hadn't realised the original batch hadn't had their tags removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You moved member states of the United Nations [2], maybe you can also move List of ASEAN member states to Member states of ASEAN? I have no move button. TAG-A-b10 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it at least be moved w/o a request to List of member states of ASEAN, so except for the "List of" it conforms to the normal form as in Category:Member states by organization and Category:States by country? TAG-A-b10 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. TAG-A-b10 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations - not only a list, so it is similar to member states of the United Nations. Also the article says it is composed of sovereign states, so these members are states, ... so I suggest moving to member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. TAG-A-b10 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be the last one. I can fix any redirects that exist. TAG-A-b10 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you dropped Shalimar Gardens (Lahore) from the category Mughal architecture. May I ask why? Thanks -Aquib (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the categories of Mughal architecture and Mughal gardens, they don't appear inclusive or well maintained. Do you change all non-diffuse categories to diffuse categories wherever you encounter them? Aquib (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your approach with respect to the removal of articles from categories. According to this section of the page on categories, articles on subcategories of special interest may also be included in their parent categories. Have you considered the implications of this distinction in the use of categories and subcategories? Take, for instance, the Taj Mahal. It is an article on a spectacular piece of architecture, noted both for its sublime structural features and splendid gardens. Which category would you place this article in, Mughal architecture or Mughal gardens?

All this to say, if you want to do huge volumes of categorization, that's one thing. It is easy to go out and identify huge numbers of articles belonging to certain categories. But if you want to also remove articles from categories, you should consider each article, each category, and each subcategory on their own merits.

Aquib (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree justification is needed in order to add articles to the parent category as well as the child. The same is true for removing articles from such structures. In the case of Mughal gardens, and more generally Islamic gardens, such exceptions are so common as to justify a blanket inclusion in the architectural parent category. In formal Islamic garden design, structure and form are inextricable from the aspects we generally consider the garden. These gardens are integral to their surroundings, the remaining examples of which often include palaces, fortresses and fortified cities. Even the home was often laid out around a formal garden.

Aquib (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some stray text attached to your above CFD nom. Could you sort this out? I suspect it was a second delete nom; if so incomplete. Do not bother replying to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed several category labels that I included in various articles such "1646 architecture" because they were not specific enough. Part of me feels like removing these categories could cause a lot of work finding these buildings again to label their year of construction properly in the future, and I don't know if its worth removing them when we have approximate years of construction. With 17th century American buildings that have undergone numerous renovations it is notoriously difficult to date them even using dendrochronology, attributed dates, and surviving deeds. It is nice to be able to find buildings constructed in a certain period by clicking on a dated category. Thoughts on how to do this? - Swampyank (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to figure out where they should go, but I would definitely be in favor of categorizing them as accurately as possibly given whatever information or records we have. If dates are really ambiguous, a century categorization would be better than nothing. Thanks for the info. Swampyank (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, sometimes I used the preposition "in" and sometimes "around" interchangeably when I created many of the NRHP stubs and then I went back and categorized them by date. My goal in categorizing them by that date was to make them easier to find. Much of that work seems to be being undone. My own personal belief is that if a year was given in the NRHP data, it is good enough to use for categorization purposes and can certainly be made more accurate at a later time when dendrochronology or other sources supersede these sources. Swampyank (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your recent edits removing higher categories: I have opened a discussion at WP talk:WikiProject Rivers. --Mhockey (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgot to move Frank Thomas (1950s–60s baseball) to Frank Thomas (outfielder) as part of the move discussion at the other Frank Thomas' page. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that your closure of the requested move discussion there is improperly formatted. Perhaps when you get a chance you could fix it? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see you close this move request as no consensus. There were 4 supports (including the proposer) versus one "provisionally oppose" and one oppose. What are the thresholds you typically use for move requests? –CWenger (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, and I'm not trying to start any trouble, but Summerlin is NOT a city in Nevada. It's a master planned community, similar to Green Valley, which is in Henderson. Leave the info for Red Rock Station the way it is if it suits you, but there is no city called Summerlin. (I would have sent email to you but don't know how through here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk101796 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the move for us! Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian. Code enforcement is now covering law enforcement, as Law enforcement does not have its own article (even though I feel that it should). People are disambiguating law enforcement by linking to code enforcement. This is why I put the alternate name in with the qualifier "often known as law enforcement," not "also known as law enforcement" (as an IP you once reverted did). The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. I don't see how the two are that distinct from each other myself, unless you view the word law as only relating to legalities instead of "a system of rules and guidelines." Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement, at least in the US, clearly has certain powers that code enforcers do not. So these two are very different. I don't understand why there is no article for Law enforcement. Lacking that article is not a reason to redirect to something that is completely wrong for many readers. A better redirect would be to police. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason the redirecting started is that both enforce "a system of rules and guidelines," no matter which of the two has more power. The Code enforcement article is more general, where as the Police article is especially about police. We could add the term "law enforcement" to the Code enforcement article in a different way, if the two are as distinct as you say. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Police and the FBI are law enforcement. The buildings department which does the code enforcement is not. LEO, or law enforcement officer, is a well established term that has absolutely nothing to do with code enforcement. Ask a police officer to enforce some code and they will direct you to the proper code enforcement department. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, the point is that the Code enforcement article covers law enforcement, for the very fact that the article is about a system of rules and guidelines, in law, etc. Law enforcement is an aspect of code enforcement, and vice versa. This is why police is even mentioned in the Code enforcement article. If there were a Law enforcement article, I am sure that code enforcement would be mentioned there as well, as it is even mentioned on its disambiguation page. So...because code enforcement is currently covering the topic of law enforcement and that law enforcement is currently without an article, that term should be mentioned and bolded in the lead of the Code enforcement article. Maybe not in the way I have done, but in another way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Article aside, law enforcement is not considered by statute or practice to be code enforcement. If the article has been rewritten to blur this line, it is not correct. Vegaswikian (talk)

If so, it doesn't stop the fact that code enforcement "is the act of enforcing a set of rules, principles, or laws (especially written ones) and insuring observance of a system of norms or customs." That definition right there? It encompasses law enforcement, which is what makes it correct that law enforcement (such as police) is currently included in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you have commented at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#2010-11_Television_program_seasons, I ask that you please comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_6#Television_programs_by_season to help resolve the parent category.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswickian. I see you're removing the stream orders from the categorisation of rivers by basin and wondered why. For example the format [[Category:Weser basin|1Geeste]] indicates that the Geeste is a first order stream of the Weser basin. So in the Weser basin category all the Weser's subordinate rivers and streams would be grouped by their stream order and then alphabetically. This system is already used (using indents) on English Wiki e.g. in List of rivers in Germany. If you feel the stream order is unnecessary, can't it at least be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers first? Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I'm no expert on use of categories. I simply copied the practice from German Wikipedia because a) I could see the (geographic) logic behind it and b) they have already done the hard work to set it up (those Germans are very organized!!). My sense is that we should raise it at the Rivers Project first to see if there is consensus for the idea. If they don't support it not, it's not even worth putting to the categorizers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention another feature of the "basin" categorization system: it is meant to include all water features in the basin including e.g. moors (under M), lakes (under L) and springs (under S) as well as comprehensively listing the rivers by stream order. See Category:Leine basin for example. That said, I'd be interested in the template idea too. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi; could you check this Dec CFD that you closed and make sure you renamed it to what you intended on renaming it to. It looks to me like it was renamed to the original proposal, which wasn't really supported nor mentioned by you in the close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, looks like a copy and paste without adding in the correct updated target. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

the above article needs protection, for reasons that will be immediately obvious on looking at the history. (if they aren't already.) thanksToyokuni3 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Roller coasters at Tokyo Disneyland, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion of those images in the Porter County, Indiana category. Rest assured I will be moving the remaining ones to the commons on an irregular basis, but I will move them. In the meantime, as I've mentioned on the CfD board, there are some duplicate images I've been waiting to have deleted from other parts of the country, most of which are either New York realted, or railroad related. Here's my list;

• Rockland County, New York:
  • File:NY303NorthernTerminus2.jpg
  • File:NY303SouthboundPalisadesMall.jpg
  • File:NY303SouthernTerminus.jpg
  • File:NY306SouthernTerminus.jpg

• Orange County, New York:
  • File:AVREasternBegin.jpg
  • File:AVREasternTerminus1.jpg
  • File:AVRWestbound180Turn.jpg
  • File:AVRWesternTerminus2.jpg

• Westchester County, New York:
  • File:Bronxville movie theater.jpg

• Long Island, New York:
  • File:Leisurama-home.jpg
  • File:Memory-motel.jpg

• Images of Railway Stations in the United States(and their sub-categories):
  • File:Transit at Government Center.jpg
  • File:Jlkcenter.jpg
  • File:Tyrone PA Station sign.jpg
  • File:Tyrone PA Amtrak Station; Rebuilt.jpg

There could be others, but I'll have to check on them later. In the meantime, could you delete the duplicates of those? ----DanTD (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, well maybe you can pass the message along to somebody who can delete these. I'm still going to prepare the others in the CfD discussions as quickly as I can. ----DanTD (talk)

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For this. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you still moved Gideon (biblical figure) even though no one produced any concrete evidence in favor. Powers ^T 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit of an unfair standard. It's very difficult to produce evidence against a primary topic when there is no single strong competing candidate. Yet even so, looking at the discussion again, I'm the only one who produced any evidence at all. I'm not sure what else I could possibly have been expected to do. Powers ^T 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response when you get a chance. Powers ^T 13:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ciao! A note about why I reverted your recent edit... Well, in many cases churches in Rome were in such a dismaying state, or otherwise the pope wanted to leave a tangible sign (as most of them were, morally and/or politically, nullities!) at any cost, that the edifices were rebuilt or changed terrificly. I think this is the case of this church (also often the original state was "restored" in the 20th century), so it's reasonable to list the article in that category. Ciao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful feedback on Talk:Aria Resort & Casino. I agree on all counts, especially on the sense that it still comes across as reading a bit like an advertisement in several instances. I felt that this was the case with the current version of the article, which seems largely to be based on primary sources. I also agree that several sections of the article (e.g. restaurants listed in infobox) should be tweaked in the interest of brevity.

I am digging in a bit more to this, and will take a stab at re-working my userspace draft with your recommendations and WP:GA in mind. I'll let you know once it is worth another look. Your help as a second set of eyes (esbecially as a Las Vegas local) has been a big help here. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I've done a good bit of cleanup to the Aria draft you provided feedback on earlier. The primary changes include:

• Re-structured much of the article, breaking out the Convention center sub-heading so that it can be wikilinked to from the List of convention centers in Las Vegas.
• I trimmed the volume of content listed in the infobox to only that which was essential, as it had become too lengthy (for instance, the number of restaurants was cut down to three)
• Within the Attractions sub-heading, limited the mentions of restaurants to only those which had received significant independent coverage in WP:RS
• Added a History section to provide context into the background and construction
• Re-phrased each section to establish notability. Removed POV language throughout.
• Structured pictures within the body of the article, instead of having a Gallery at the bottom.

This is a significant change from the prior draft, but I think it was necessary. If you are able to take a peek at this updated draft, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Enjoy the weekend! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, kudos for your scrupulous MoS cleanup of the Aria article. I was able to find a working link for source #2, so I've replaced the previous deadlink. Just one question regarding this edit that you made. The text now reads as:

• "Aria contains 4,004 hotel rooms, totaling 4,000,000." (which leads the reader to wonder, 4,000,000 of what?)

I understand that the measurement conversion template should not be used again. However, it seems that it would read more clearly if we add "square feet" in plain text so that it looks like this:

• "Aria contains 4,004 hotel rooms, totaling 4,000,000 square feet."

Do you agree? Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the square foot notation. Perhaps we don't need to state the total square-footage in the Hotel section at all. How about one of these alternatives (citations/formatting not included for simplicity):

Option 1:

• Aria contains 4,004 hotel rooms. The suites make up 568 of the rooms, and a portion are referred to as Sky Suites. Sky Suites are categorized separately since they are accessed via a private entrance and elevator, and include transportation between the hotel and airport in limousines fueled by compressed natural gas.

Option 2:

• Aria contains 4,004 hotel rooms, including 568 suites. A portion of the suites, categorized as Sky Suites, are accessed via a private entrance and include transportation between the hotel and airport in limousines fueled by compressed natural gas. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was having trouble identifying exactly how many Sky Suites there are. Even in reliable sources, I've found conflicting numbers. For example, this source claims that all 568 suites are "Sky Suites", which is clearly not correct. Even the official website does not provide much detail on Sky Suites.

I think you're right -- we can do better on this phrasing. I'll do a bit of searching to see if there is any solid information defining how many rooms fall into the Sky Suites category. Will let you know what I find. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how a citation is needed to state that it sometimes encompasses law enforcement, when the definition is pretty clear that it does, and when the article has titles such as Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer, etc. in it. The definition should be rewritten if it doesn't encompass things that deal with the law, such as law enforcement, and examples of law enforcement should be excluded from the article. In fact, the very definition needs a citation to show what it includes and doesn't include. The "fact tag" should therefore be attributed to the whole definition for now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you have noticed the removal of water park categories by Summer Vacation. I for one feel that there is room for a distinction between water parks and amusement parks so I supported the previous category structure. Rather than just revert the hundreds of edits by Summer Vacation, I was wondering if you knew what was available in terms of discussing this. I am aware of WP:CFD but since the moves have already been made is that the place to go for it. Thanks Themeparkgc  Talk  22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for changing those links to Las Vegas... I didn't realize it led to a disambiguation page. I'll try to be more mindful of such things in the future. Thanks again. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Township article titles in which you might be interested. Station1 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This message is a courtesy notification to let you know about an ANI discussion regarding an issue with which you were involved. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I think User:Summer Vacation may have gone off the deep end.... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you do photo requests?

If so, why not take the Sysco facility in Las Vegas? It is at 6201 E. Centennial Pkwy. Las Vegas NV. 89115

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cool! Sounds like a neat project!
• Do you know any Las Vegas-area Wikipedians who do photo requests?
• WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves is erroneously popping up whenever editing WP:RM, including adding or deleting items to Uncontroversial Requests section. Station1 (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. I don't have a strong opinion, but another user requested that they match the main Nevada template. I could add "|titlestyle = {{NRHP style}}", if you think that's best? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but neither at Talk:Huai'an County, Hebei nor Talk:Guyuan County, Hebei was there any opposition to the move I requested; in the first case, Andrewa was at best neutral, and in the second, no one responded to my query. If you do not do anything to the second request you closed, I will CSD the conflicting re-direct. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in reading the discussion it is clear that there are issues with the reason offered for the rename. While you consider the comments as neutral, I viewed them as more substantial. They were at a level that I could not agree that this was an uncontested move request. So it is better to not move. As to the fact that there were no comments on the second. That is not quite true since the suggestion there is to see the comments in the first nomination. Given that, they both should be closed in the same way for consistency. If you still believe that these articles should be moved, you can renominate them (consider using the multiple move request) and provide a reason that avoids, or at least addresses, the questions that were raised in this disucssion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks much for your clarification. Though I do consider it unsettling that Andrewa was only concerned about policy and did not respond to the search results I provided. Clearly not an equal consideration of both facts and policy. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the layout improvements. There's one problem now, and that is that the commons category link box sits on top of the references. Is that a bug that's dependent on the browser used (I'm using Firefox 3.6) or is that a general problem? Schwede66 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that and I don't see a solution other then adding a clear of some sort. I'm on Firefox 4.0.1. IE displays it with issues also. The numbers for the references overlap the images on the left. I'll move most of the images to a gallery. That should address the issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that all US townships except for a few in New Jersey include the word "Township" in their names? Your statement that this violates the place name convention is badly in error. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian,

Sorry, but I just 'undid' your attempt to fix the Plymouth ironworks article, it wasn't what I meant at all :) I've had another look at the text I wrote on that talk page - and I can see that I was very unclear - my apologies. I've attempted to clarify that entry (on the talk page). so if you have the know how and can 'move' Plymouth ironworks to Plymouth Ironworks that would be great.

If not no worries, either I'll eventually learn how to do it myself or other wikipedians will eventually get there I guess. EdwardLane (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Edward :)

thanks EdwardLane (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the Category:Free election? I finished the free elections links, and I am working on the free election ones. Only two of the free elections' links were actually to Royal elections in Poland. But with the free election links I'm finding more. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Firstly, thanks for all the work you do at WP:RM. You seem to be one of only a few admins there and you work is greatly appreciated. Secondly, I came here to ask about your close of Talk:Kepler (spacecraft)#Requested move. I'm not debating that a no consensus close was correct. The only question I have is, as I said in the RM, if the article was moved to the current title in January with no discussion (which therefore had no consensus) does a no consensus close of the RM then default back to the original title (Kepler Mission) because there was no real consensus either way? Or is the time between the move in January and the RM in April too long for this to happen? Hope this doesn't come off like I'm trying to game the system or anything, I'm just genuinely curious. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Vegaswikian - Yes, We Would Also Like To Thank You *Very Much* For Your Recent Decision re Talk:Kepler (spacecraft)#Requested move Involving The Kepler (spacecraft) Article - However, There May Have Been A "Consensus" (esp If "Consensus" Is Defined As A "Simple Majority"?) Not To Move/Rename The Kepler (spacecraft) Article After All Since Four Editors (Xession, Drbogdan,GW and ChiZeroOne) Opposed The Move/Rename From "Kepler (spacecraft)" To "Kepler Mission" - And Three Editors Supported The Move/Rename (Jenks24, LouScheffer and Ng.j) - Please Correct Our Understanding Of Any Of This If Possible - At The Very Least, We May Better Understand The Present Wikipedia RM Process - In Any Regards - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that consensus is not determined by counting !votes. It is determined by the strength of the arguments and the existing policies and guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

copied from Jenks24 talk page. No, I do not consider asking questions gaming the system. It is fair to ask someone who closed a discussion additional questions. Sometimes these do affect the closers decisions and changes can be made. I will admit that I did miss the bit about the previous move. However, I'm not convinced that the arguments that the current name is incorrect are the strongest. While reading a good part of the article and skimming some, it seems to be mostly about the spacecraft and what the spacecraft is achieving. So the arguments to keep it at this location seem to be the strongest. I think the biggest problem with the move positions is that the Kepler mission is just that a mission that the spacecraft will be trying to achieve. So the spacecraft is the key element here.

Also in looking at the way other satellites are disambiguated, spacecraft seems to be far and away the most common method. And for most of the ones I have looked at over time they also discuss the mission within the articles on the craft. This seems to reflect the guidance from WikiProject Spaceflight which seems to clearly favor spacecraft as the preferred form of disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply on my talk page and it is good to know that previous moves can be taken into consideration. I will only note two things: the article was heavily rewritten during the RM (here is what it looked like when I proposed the move) and the essay you noted was only created this January this year (and a few days later the article in question was moved by the editor who wrote most of the essay). That said, I was probably too heavily involved in the discussion to see the other side's opinion 100% clearly and I will trust that your close was for the best. So, to Drbogdan, who I just edit conflicted with, please note I will be dropping this and the article can remain at the current title (at least from my point of view). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You *Both* Very Much For *All* Of Your Comments - Your Comments Are All *Very* Much Appreciated - And - Greatly Helps Us (namely, wife and I) Better Understand The General RM Closing Process - Also, To Be Clear - I Made Many Of The Recent Edits In The Main Article (Kepler (spacecraft)) Since the RM Was Presented (04/19/2011) - The Edits Mostly Involved The Article's Pre-existing References (Over 75 References Were Updated and/or Adjusted) - AFAIK, Updating These References Was Entirely Ok With All - Other Than The Lead Sentence In The Lede, Very Little Of The Original Text In The Main Article Was Actually Changed Since The Time The RM Was First Requested (04/19/2011) To The Present Date (04/26/2011) - In Any Regards - Thanks Again - And Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you may be correct about little of the actual text being changed (for reference here is the diff showing the changes between the start of the RM and the end). Apologies, I now realise only the lead was significantly altered. Jenks24 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No Problem Whatsoever - Thanks For Understanding - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I marvel that you claim that subcategorising built-by-year categories by countries is overcategorisation. To take a random example, Category:1880 architecture and its subcategory have over two hundred entries, and many other years' categories have more. How do you propose to make these more navigable? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools.
Message added 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI. Several months ago there was a big blowup over changing {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}}. You may want to reconsider this unnecessary change. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So sad. There are participants here at Wikipedia who like to play Simon Says, but I don't. I perform copyediting. —Quicksilver^{T @} 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the cable channel is now called "NewsChannel 8", I personally don't care if it is moved to NewsChannel 8 (DC Cable Channel), it just needs to be moved, cause we have an out of date named page with current information and it just looks shotty. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just saying that, it would be better suited as just NewsChannel 8 (cable channel) since there will be those who say "cable channel" should be lowercase due to MOS and those who say "DC" should be changed to "Washington, D.C.", so just NewsChannel 8 (cable channel) would be better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus in the discussion was simply against "KABA.chan" as the page title. I have started a new move discussion to send the page to "Kaba.chan" instead, but I think that it might just be easier if you moved it and closed the RM prematurely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to let the move discussion have the full term to see if there is consensus for what you are proposing. After the last discussion, I'm not sure that there will be consensus to move the article from it's older name. I could be wrong about you not getting consensus, but there is no harm done by letting the discussion play out. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The original name of the article was "Kaba.chan". It was subsequently moved to "KABA.chan" and then "Kabachan" back to "KABA.chan", which initiated the first RM.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I missed the earlier moves. But going back to the last name still is the reasonable alternative. Let the discussion play out and see where consensus winds up. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a random IP editor saying it should be speedy closed because it's a reverse of the move. This would have been a lot easier if people didn't automatically think that any punctuation mark has no place in a page title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. It seems that the sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user:NuclearEnergy has created quite a number of questionable categories and articles. I don't say that all created categories are useless – some of them them may be quite useful. However, they need probably more systematic approach and cleanup. I nominated three categories for discussion but probably we should go through also other edits of this user. Beagel (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it is going to be a mess. In some cases it appears that there is good work and others that are marginal. Can I suggest that you create a subpage on your account with the articles and categories that need looking at. The notes can be added and as actions are decided and taken as needed. I'm in the middle of populating building and structures completed by year and that is a major task with maybe 20,000 articles left to look at that have identified dates in an easy to find place. One trick, use this link to see more of the editors contributions on one query. Makes searching on new categories (using 'n category') a tad faster. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:Battles_of_the_Mexican–American_War#Discussion you say there was no consensus. I'm curious, did you do that by counting the !votes, or did you evaluate the strength of the arguments on both sides? If you did the latter, what strength did you see in the opposing arguments? For the life of me I can't understand what that is. If you just counted, what ever happened to WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and WP:JDLI#Title_discussions? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I thought we did not close discussions that were hot and active. This one flared up again today, with several new people contributing, including myself. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, there was no !vote counting. This is a clear cut case of no consensus after 6 weeks of so of discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't count !votes, how did you determine there was no consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By reading the discussion, by looking at the 2 discussions on the main article and reading the request to move the category discussion. But in the end, the discussion did not produce consensus. Yes, there was one side that in my opinion presented a stronger case. But this was not to the point where one could argue consensus. The bottom line is that we need a single discussion that is going to resolve this for all of the articles and categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a nag, I'm just puzzled by how no consensus could be found in that discussion, unless all the !votes were essentially given equal weight without regard to ground in policy, guidelines and conventions.

What was the strength, if any, in terms of basis in policy, guidelines and conventions, in the weaker case? If there was none (which is how I read it), why give that case any weight whatsoever? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is a significant majority of the respondents. It is clearly not 51% and probably not 65%. The close stated the fact that there was no consensus based on that discussion. This is not an exact science where you can say that you apply the policy with 100% weight and discount that because of some other factors. It is in the end a judgement call. When I lasted looked at that talk page, it seems that the close has been accepted and the editors are working on a way to resolve the problem presented by the proposal. You are the only one that seems overly concerned about it. Like I said, it is a judgement call but after 6 weeks or so, it was the correct one in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not contesting your decision, just trying to understand it.

If you are thinking in terms 51% vs. 65% - that's counting, or at least estimating, !votes - without regard to grounding in policy, guidelines and conventions.

I suggest - and you may disagree, of course - a much better way to evaluate these discussions is to consider each !vote and give it a weighting, say -5 to 5, where +5 is well grounded argument in support, -5 is a well grounded argument in opposition, and 0 is pure WP:JDLI, with +3 and -3 representing something in between. If you do something like that, it could be much less formal but essentially evaluating the discussion in those terms, I suggest you'd come up with a very different outcome with regard to what consensus is, more in line with this: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions."

I, for one, wish all discussion were evaluated in a manner something like that. It would encourage those participating in the discussions to pay much more attention to the strength of their arguments, and, I believe, would greatly increase the quality of the discussions. Cheers!- WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for fun, I thought I'd run through the !vote, assign points as fairly as I can, and see what happens.

• CWenger: (proposer): +3

1. Most reliable sources use a hyphen instead of an en dash
2. Adherence to the WP:Manual of Style
3. Consistency with Mexican-American War

• kwami: -1

1. Claims without citing policy or anything that CWenger's 1 is irrelevant as "we do not depend on RSs for stylistic choices"
2. Claims Cwenger's 2 is false, without any basis.
3. Discounts relevance as being a "bad title", without basis

• McLerristarr: -1

Agrees with Kwami and explains differences between dash and hyphen in this case, but no basis in policy, guideline or conventions.

• Tony: 0

Just says he agrees with Kwami

• Enric Naval: +3

1. Sites reference that majority of RS use hyphen (this is an unchallenged point)
2. Argues common English usage should trump MOS

Later notes that it's normal for spinouts to be renamed after parent is renamed.

• Toddy1: +1

references M-A War discussion

• Noetica: -3
  • "Kwami is right"
  • Discounts move of M-A War article as "controversial" and "bungled"
  • Repeats argument that punctuation in RS is inconsistent and irrelevant - we follow MOS
    • Noval's challenge of inconsistent claim is unchallenged - "the immense majority of RS use hyphen"
  • Cites WP:ENDASH
• PMA: +3
  • Cites COMMONNAME and TITLE as trumping MOS
  • Claims only publisher that might use en-dash is Oxford, but discounts that as British English while this should be American English, and finds OE source that uses hyphen anyway. Claim is challenged, but without basis (and challenger seems to later concede that there is no basis to challenge the claim)
• Ucucha: +1
  • should match parent article
• IP: +1
  • match parent article
• Dicklyon: +1
  • Explains difference between what he thinks hyphen and dash mean, but without explanation or basis as to why WP should do it that way.
    • Challenge from Naval to provide RS is unanswered.
• Fut.Perf: +2
  • Use of en-dash for this practice is not current practice in RS.
  • The distinctiveness that the MOS tries to make between en-dash and hyphen is OR.
• EricHaugen: -1
  • Follow style guide; be consistent
• OpenFuture: +2
  • consistency with main article
  • avoid hard-to-type dashes
• B2C: +4
  • Current title requires going through redirects which is not right
  • Current title complicates linking
  • Notes that no advantage to use en-dash is seen.
  • Rejects claim that difference in meaning between hyphen and en-dash is significant
  • Suggests using hyphens exclusively for simplicity and consistency without any loss in significant meaning.
  • Notes that freedom in WP means consistency in dash/hyphen usage per current MOS guidelines is impossible.
• JN466: -1
  • Likes distinction between dash and hyphen (concedes many RS don't do this, but cites a couple of sources that do).

Maybe I'm biased, giving myself the only 4 pointer, but that's how I would weigh the arguments, resulting in a +10 in support of moving, if I summed correctly. I just don't see much substance at all on the oppose side, and the numbers show it. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's how it came from Elkman, but please don't go upsetting him. clariosophic (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been working on the Julia Görges article and I left a message on the talk page with regard to WP:COMMONNAME. I'd appreciate your input. -- James26 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume a re-nomination could still occur if the common name argument isn't disproved. -- James26 (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that to my statement. -- James26 (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. "State amendments banning same-sex unions". "Union" is terribly vague, it reads like no union, like two women being in a relationship, is being permitted. And your advice on resolving the issue about whether this is U.S.-only or not is not substantial. Couldn't you have chosen a clearer title for the close instead of simply adopting the proposed name? Now the mess to clean up is no less than before - you've read the reasons why this title is vague in the discussion that was had. Care to provide further assistance? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian -- Giving pending change at template:infobox NRHP, could we hold off on edits like this one removing built dates for historic districts? In the next edit for that one, i put in a "signifdates=" field. It would be pretty easy to find and revise each one of these if a different field name is chosen. I'd rather not lose the significant date info. I do know it has already been lost from lots of existing articles. --doncram 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You replied "So it's OK to drop the category just leave the built parameter in the template for now?" Yes, that is what i suggest. It will make sense to revisit all HD articles that have a built= date, by bot or otherwise. The given built= date, if provided by NRIS as will almost always be the case, is a valid date of significance which can be saved if not deleted. The year categories never made sense to me. I don't even care for the categories for built year for buildings where the date built is known; i hardly ever will navigate by category, am just not a category person. (This relates to Template talk:infobox nrhp#Built dates.) --doncram 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You replied "Does it make sense to just add 'significant dates' to the template and just change the ones for the districts as I find them? If the field name changes after more discussion, it would be easy enough to change the template. This way we retain the information and more closely identify it with what it is probably about. If we do that, I can got through my last 1,000 or 2,000 edits and add the new field where built was removed from districts." Maybe, tho not exactly sure what you mean. I have requested that significant dates field be added to the nrhp infobox template. It may end up being named "signifdates=", or it might end up with some other field name. I don't know if it is worthwhile for you to go backwards through your removals of built= info for the HDs, until it is settled. Possibly i or someone else could provide material for editors to add the entire list of significant dates from NRIS, not just the first one which Elkman's system had provided, which could all be provided in one edit for each existing article, maybe. --doncram 22:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. There was quite a debate regarding the usage of diacritics involving a number of admins, see for example: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis. The result was: all names remain at the diacritics-version until a new concensus for all such names emerges.
I think moving Béla Lugosi to the diacriticless version referring to WP:Commonname without a new community-wide discussion about the topic was a mistake. Especially given the mixed result of the process.
I think the community is open to a new discussion on the usage of diacritics in general, but moving them one by one without a clear concensus would be supported neither by the editors nor the admins. Squash Racket (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you’ve relisted the Corvette move, again! I’ve commented here; can you please explain why this is still dragging on? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why my edit on the AirTran page was reverted, I had a worthy source. I do not take offense and I bet you have a good reason, I would just like to learn so I do not make the mistake again. Cali4529 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is a thread involving your relist of the discussion at Talk:Corvette, but it didn't name you specifically. Anyway, I have posted there and I mentioned you by name. According to the edit notice, I should therefore inform you that there is a discussion where you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic Move Proposal discussion at Talk:Corvette. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that people will be upset either way. Also re "the option is there to close the discussion at any time if the discussion establishes that there is or is not a primary topic"; well I guess you learn something new every day. Jenks24 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to spread the wikilove and let you know I love you for nominating all those animal famous categories for renaming. It was a lot of work cause there were a lot of subcategories.Curb Chain (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Vegaswikian, thanks for moving the article Kaveri River to Kaveri. However, I think you forgot to move the talk page to the corresponding title. I guess there is some content already in Talk:Kaveri, but I guess you can merge them, or anything you feel best. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 20:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay . Yes Michael? •^Talk 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the nomination to rename Minarchism.png to something more appropriate. Abel (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you moved this page? While I understand moving Naïve to Naive, moving an article about a song named with the diaeresis doesn't make much sense to me. Naïve (album) wasn't moved, which makes sense, as the album (and as the song) has a diaeresis officially. Please let me know why you felt the song article should be moved. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, you're right, it was just the Talk page. I think this one got moved too: Talk:Naïve/Hell to Go. Thanks for the response! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As a user who participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28#Category:Famous animals and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 12#Individual animals, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals#Recent Cfd moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "...Rather then another relisting I'd suggest a discussion to try and find a solution to the issues raised." supposed to mean? The only issue is the name. This was closed very quickly for an RM, wasn't it? Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 May 20 may interest you. Both hotel and casino are proposed for merger. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I'm going to use that, I'm sure. –droll [chat] 18:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Now that some time has passed, how do I start a new nomination for a move, with regard to the naming issue we'd discussed? -- James26 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know about the three months thing. I'll wait a few days. Thanks for the advice. -- James26 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There I go again with my assumptions. All right then, I'll add the new request to the talk page. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

While your observation on categories seems simple, that was the beauty of it. I can't tell you how often we argue over whether Podunk should be recognized for not having a Target retail store. We don't report things that did not happen. So simple and therefore so brilliant! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have two concerns with the CSD of Cross-Harbour Bus Route 914, one minor, one anal:

• Your edit summary says "No assertion of notability". As you know, lack of notability is acceptable at AfD, but CSD has a different hurdle (importance or significance.)
• I don't see that a bus route qualifies as a "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content".--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of this article gave no indication whether you had read my comments on the Talk page which explained why I felt a prod or AFD would be more appropriate in this case. Did you read/consider my comments? It seems ridiculous to me that whomever originally added the content to an existing article, thinking it belonged there, could come back to find that within the span of 7 hours, the content was moved to a separate article and then immediately deleted because it didn't meet the standards of a separate article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the article's claim that "The company is known for its trunk shows that navigated the East Coast" meets the standard of asserting that the company is notable, whether the statement's accurate or not. I would really appreciate you overturning the speedy and saving me the trouble of listing, at deletion review, an article I don't even care about but I nevertheless feel the need to try to get a fair hearing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the speedy deletion criteria seems quite clear that failing WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CORP are not grounds for speedy deletion. I can be more specific if necessary. I point this out because it may be of use to you if you habitually handle speedy-delete cases. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A reminder that DEFAULTSORT uses a colon, not a pipe, for example: {{DEFAULTSORT:Action Of 20080411}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Action Of 20080411}}. (Spelling "Action" correctly also doesn't hurt.) —Paul A (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've been moving this tag from below the last line of the NRHP infoboxes to the refnum line. I think that's a mistake. The tag applies to the whole box, not just the reference number, so having it appear at the very bottom of the box seems right to me.

I think I've seen it more than once, but your change to All Saints' Church, Ashmont prompted this note. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you look, you will see that they are on one line in most of the infoboxes. If you would like to have a reference label included in the infobox for your purpose, then suggest that. But to think that anyone reading the infobox will know or assume that since it is on it's own line that it means it applies to everything in the infobox is a leap of faith. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As you surely know, just because the same mistake is made frequently doesn't make it right. The Elkman tool, which probably created most of the NRHP infoboxes, puts it at the bottom. Why not just leave it there?. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't go to those articles to just fix that, I fix it when there are other changes needed. The elkman tool is broken and not just in the infobox. While it does do a good job of building the basics, it needs the user to review and modify what is being created to make sure it is accurate and correct. The next update of the infobox will help as long as the tool is updated. And as I said, if the reference is for the whole of the infobox it should be on a reference line and not someplace that goes against the MoS. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as the closing administrator, could you do the formal wrap of the 2011 Proposed Move discussion at Talk:Frank Williams (Formula One)? Also is there an easy way to make the Requested Move template say what it used to say before the Move [that it had been proposed that "Frank Williams" be moved, rather than the then-nonexistent "Frank Williams (Formula One)"] ? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Saw this in the RM backlog, so I made a housekeeping closure. Consensus seemed fairly clear cut to me, so I don't think you would need to add a rationale, but feel free to remove my closure and add your own with a rationale if you like. As a note to Shakescene, the requested move template is removed as part of the closing procedure (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closing the requested move), so hopefully it makes more sense now. Jenks24 (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, You should have checked the references before moving Bon Iver (album) to Bon Iver, Bon Iver. The album is entitled Bon Iver' by Bon Iver, not Bon Iver, Bon Iver by Bon Iver. The references from iTunes, Amazon, Rolling Stone Magazine are clear, yet you appear to have gone with references pointing to Twitter and other third party websites (against Wiki policy). Experienced editors reverted the "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" changes many times, but you failed to check the talk pages. You should never move a page unless you are 100% sure. Other wiki contributors have now reverted back to the correct references, but the article still points to the moved (wrong!) page. Please look at the references and change or I will ask someone else to look at it. Many thanks. Vitashaomi (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO READ COMMENTS AND LOOK AT REFERENCES BEFORE CHANGING AND MOVING ARTICLES. THANKS AND NO HARD FELLINGS. Vitashaomi (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please refer to Talk:Hyderabad_Campaign_(1948) where I made a "Requested move" and it was agreed to "Move" this article. However, this move was unilateraly reverted back by a User who does not agree with the results of this request. You are requested to review this. Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There was 2/3 consensus to move the article though not to Li Na (tennis player) but rather Li Na as it is the primary topic. Could you please revise your decision? Cheers, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:19pm • 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That was 4 months ago. Since it closed as no consensus, you are free to renominate. These discussions are suppose to be decided based on the consensus which is not counting !votes but also needs to consider the strength of each argument. In that discussion I did not believe that there was a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of NOTVOTE/NOTBALLOT, though it was widely accepted that it was the main topic, you appear to have overlooked that in closing the move request. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:25pm • 08:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I requested a move several weeks back, on the grounds that the article on voodoo science was really mostly about Prof. Robert L. Park's book, Voodoo Science. Is it okay if I start transforming the article from a general article on voodoo science to an article specifically about Park's ideas as explained in his book? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering why you just created Category:Anglican churches alongside Category:Anglican church buildings, with apparently the same purpose? If anything, should there rather be a separate cat for congregations, such as Category:Anglican congregations established in the 20th century? - Fayenatic (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Las Vegas, Nevada article to favor your position in the ongoing discussion about the scope of that article. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikiian. Thank you very much for moving the "urolithiasis" page to bladder stone. Now we have the two daughter articles:

1. kidney stone (covering stones of the upper urinary tract) and
2. bladder stone (covering stones of the lower urinary tract).

In order to complete the picture, I would now like to create the parent article, with the title urolithiasis. The primary purpose of this new article will be to provide a brief introduction to the overall subject and then to redirect the reader to one or both of the daughter articles. I expect that it need not be more than a few paragraphs. I just want to make sure I do the right thing here. If I just paste the new text into the "urolithiasis" page (which now contains only the "#REDIRECT [[Bladder stone]]"), will this work? I am trying to be mindful of unintended consequences, and I do not want to readers to enter some bizarre feedback loop when they enter "urolithiasis" or "bladder stone" as a search term. Thanks again for your help! DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That should work. When you do the cut and paste to split our the 'new' article just make sure that both edit summaries note when the text is moved from and to. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like instead of the main article, you moved the Slavia Prague talk page to SK Slavia Prague. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cloudz679 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You've closed my RM request on Sterilization (surgical procedure), but I think such closure may be premature. Although there is no consensus for change yet, the most recent post is only about 5 days old, and states (with my emphasis) that "the Article Title [should] not be changed until a successful conclusion of our active WP:Discussion." It also includes a note that it may take Skyeking 3 days to post further responses.

There is still a prima facie discrepancy between the article contents/scope (non-surgical Essure, the lede paragraph's wording) and its title (surgical) that I think needs to be resolved. What's the best thing to do here? Undo the discussion closure? Start a new discussion? Perhaps a WP:RFC on the scope (and title) - rather than WP:RM would prompt more input from more editors. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent closures of the maNga articles' move requests, especially the maNga+ album article, an editor had mistakenly turned that into a redirect to the maNga (album) article. I went ahead and restored the article and moved the page to Manga+, as I figured you would have done in the name of consistency. As for the ideas behind the move requests, I must go work on something else now, but I would like to discuss it with you further. Thank you for what I believe were the best decisions under the circumstances. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Because your closures of these articles' move requests were opposite of what I contend to be policy, I probably should take this to the next level. It's only right that I let you know this, and to, of course, get your input. I hope that you will also counsel me regarding your own interpretation of this policy, in terms of its clear requirement for article titles that are familiar to readers, and its evident clash with the guidelines cited during the move-request discussion (MOS:TM, MOS for music, WP:MUSTARD and MOS:ALBUM#Capitalization). I believe the maNga articles represent one of those rare times when these guidelines are in direct conflict with policy. Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pleeease don't start removing those churches to a different category. Just leave them where they can be found!

I am currently undertaking to stop Cyde and his BOT from miscategorising hundreds of churches.

Whatever St Ursula's is, is is not a 5th century building

The notion of "Catholic", and "non-Catholic" is of no relevance in terms of the building. It is relevant in terms of the "congregation". If you insist on categorising buildings by denomination, you open a can of worms which then cannot be contained.

For example: You cannot categorise the Cathedral of Cordoba as a "Catholic building". You cannot categorise Lincoln Cathedral as a "Catholic building". You cannot categorise St Paul's Cathedral as a "Catholic building". The reasons are different in every one of these three cases. Yet under the system you are currently applying, all should be recategorised as such.

The problem with the current reclassification is not that it fails to acknowledge the Christian denomination. The problem is that a BOT was applied, which move all churches previously categorised as being "founded" at a particular date, as being a building of that particular date. This is most inappropriate, because it puts 11th century buildings on earlier foundations into the 6th century, St Paul's London (which is plainly 17th century) into the 7th century, Canterbury Cathedral (plainly Norman and Gothic) into the 6th century. It will take some time to recategorise every single church article, and decide which architectural period they actually represent, as they stand today.

If you have expertise in architectural history, or you are prepared to read every single article, and, where they are not clear, do you own research, then please be on stand-by. In the meantime, please don't continue to recategorise architecture by denomination. It doesn't work like that. It is both divisive and confusing.

I also want to comment here that I find the continual rearrangement of things into more and more "specific" compartments leads to more trouble than it is worth.Why should anybody have to track along a series of obscure routes, some with no info in them, to find information? This happens on Commons as well, where it can be almost impossible to find pics, through the maze of circuitous paths that people have created, often naming them i some way that is not used by academics in the particular discipline.

Amandajm (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Film appreciation?

Which problem precisely? Amandajm (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this category, when we already have Category:Years in architecture? Chesdovi (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See re deletion Category:Jails as covered by Category:Prisons Hugo999 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the category of Gaia Earth Sciences which you changed back to "Companies of Scotland", I just had a look at the contents of the category and it is defined as "Companies incorporated in Scotland. These companies are subject to Scots law." Our company is incorporated in England and is therefore subject to English Law so I'm changing it back. If you had looked at the discussion page you would have seen the note I put there about this. Slhuyton (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The headnote at Category:Companies of Scotland was meaningless, and I've removed it. See Category talk:Companies of England#Scope of category. --Mhockey (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I note you reverted my attempt to turn this into something usable. I believe in WP:BRD, so I expect it is up to you now to present a solution how this template can be turned in something manageable. It is undisputed, I hope, that navigation templates do not have the aim to duplicate full articles such as "list of martial arts by regional origin". I am looking forward to your suggestion. I have tagged the template for cleanup until you present one. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, my mistake entirely. Happy editing. --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can you please explain why you want to delete categories for 1990's and 2000's when this band has been in existence continuously since the 1980's, has released records and toured in the 80's, 90's and 2000's and remains current today? --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Renegade band article here. I would appreciate understanding exactly why a category was deleted for a band that is and was in existence for each of the years that were deleted. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to complain (this move isn't terribly important to me), but to query on procedure. You closed this move request after there 1 idle week, but you did not do the same here. I suppose the difference must be because a DAB page stands in a way? —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 18:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Peoplefromarizona is a sockpuppet of banned editor User:fanoftheworld (who lately has been editing under other accounts such as User:Rerumirf). I know I am not supposed to do this, but since I don't edit here I am not so worried about what Bureaucrat might say. This user is changing the tone of Steinway & sons to the style that Fanoftheworld was trying to impose. His/her main interest are freemasons ( User:Rerumirf is danish for Freemason backwards) and Steinway & Sons and also edits other articles that make reference to this brand (Royal Warrants, for example). Please read the archived history of Steinway & Sons for more details about this banned user. I am not active on wikipedia anymore, but I think it is worth investigating the activities of this user. Thank you.--Karljoos (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your contribution to this matter at MOSNUM talk would be appreciated. Do you not agree we finally need more detailed guidance? I've got no dog in this race myself, but I'd really like to be able to consult some kind of guideline. Tony (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor[3] has went through and removed the word "Persian" from numerous articles and replaced it with Tajik. Most of the articles in question have references stating Persian. I have asked for sources on talk pages, but was ignored and reverted. Can you help? My subsequent warning on his talk page was deleted.[4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know any thing about Iranians? Tajiks are a sub-branch of Persians. Eastern Persian are Tajiks. If you have more question read the article about Tajiks.--Vargavandnick (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, without doing much digging I can say that changing Persian to Tajik is simply wrong. Tajik is a dab page making this change totally wrong! From doing a little reading, it is clear to me (and remember that I'm not an expert), that Tajik can mean a specific subclass of Persian. To make a change to an article that a person is part of that specific class would, in my opinion, require a citation. If this change can be perceived as a violation of WP:POV or WP:POINT it is going to be a problem. I will add that I can probably block both of you under WP:3RR even though this issue is across multiple articles. Editors should not remove warnings from their talk pages, even if they disagree with them. But as I understand policies, we can not stop them. If someone were to ask me directly how to deal with this, I would say stop making this change in additional articles. If there is no references to support this change then it should be removed. I'd also recommend that the discussion be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran to see where consensus from a larger group of editors may lie. Finally no links to Tajik directly should be used. But as I said, I'm not well versed on the subject material and these are options of one editor. However do consider this a warning about WP:3RR and edit waring. Both of you may want to read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that reverting once was edit-warring. I have yet to see any source posted on any talk page supporting Vargavandnick's edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are doing it across multiple articles, it can be edit warring. Reverting vandalism is always exempt. However, I'm not sure that this would qualify. Now, if it is unsourced and questionable, it may well be considered vandalism, especially if discussions at a wikiproject are in agreement. Also if an editor is asked to provide sources and refuses to do so, then that might also qualify as vandalism, especially if you have sources that support the current wording. Replacing good links with bad ones could also be considered vandalism, but again rather subjective. You might ask at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring to see what consensus there is. Much better to get wider input than to rely on input from a single editor who may not always be correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For fairness. Vargavandnick (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please note that Category:Roman Catholic church buildings, which you created, is a duplicate of the stated purpose of Category:Roman Catholic churches. I have no objection to retaining the latter as a parent for twin hierarchies of buildings and of congregations; is that what you had in mind?

Also, I suggest that the year-categories currently in Category:Religious buildings by century should go down a level, into the century-categories. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Category:Roman Catholic churches is that it is ambiguous since it is used for both buildings and congregations. Category:Roman Catholic church buildings follows the form used by all of the other religious buildings where this type of ambiguity exists. If you look at Category:Church buildings the parent of Category:Roman Catholic church buildings, you will see that it covers specific buildings that are used as churches and specific church congregations. This mixing of the two in the category tree is rather common. A significant majority of congregations, I feel, are not notable even if the buildings are. Also, mising these two in a mixed use category can lead to misclassification since the congregation is established in one year and the building is completed years later. The shared category system for both does not deal with this.

Other architecture related categories keep all of the year categories in one parent. I see this as useful with good navigation templates being a better way to navigate between years. No matter how that part resolves itself, I don't want to see these split into decades which does nothing, in my opinion, to improve navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, well I'll support your effort to replace all "churches" categories with "church buildings" & "congregations" categories. I trust you are content with the outcome on what is now Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century? You may have noticed that I went ahead and set up Category:Church buildings converted to a different denomination with two sub-cats and added these to the current contents, plus one from the 12th and all in the current Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 15th century. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, at this point that seems to be the best solution. One question that I really don't know the answer to. For those converted buildings, what happened to the congregations? Did the Catholic one become disestablished and a new one established or where those also 'converted'? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This was of course a matter of entire state churches breaking away from the authority of the Pope. As I understand it, most people would have carried on attending their local parish church under its new label, unless they strongly resented the changes. Recusants secretly arranged masses in private homes, hiding priests in priest holes, and had no English bishops until 1782 (Catholic Emancipation). I don't know when Catholics were able to build their own church buildings again. Meanwhile English Dissenters were building various Nonconformist churches. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have request move back to the long-standing 2008 Mumbai attacks title. Since you closed the "discussion", I thought I would let you know. --Cerejota (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian. I am just letting you know that I deleted Flux (software company), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You recently closed this discussion but gave no explanation. Since this affects other discussions that are likely to take place, please can you include your reasons for the renaming on the discussion page, especially given that there was significant opposition from 3 different contributors and there was a lack of evidence from those supporting the rename. Cjc13 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment on my talk page. Cjc13 (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You have again deleted what I consider to be valid categories for Newington Green Unitarian Church, including the same one as last time, and I have again queried why on the article talk page. If you wish to explain, please do so there. (This time you left no explanation in the edit summary.) If I don't hear back from you, I will amend the categories in a day or two. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In looking at some of the latest comments, there is some rather odd timing that hints of WP:CANVASS. While the notices posted by User:Ephebi about these discussions are neutral, they appear to only be posted on user talk pages of those opposed to the change based on the opinions listed. While I realize that you have commented in some of these discussions this pass, given that you have been doing most of the closings, I wonder what wisdom you might have to offer on this. My current leaning is to close the lot as a tainted discussion. I'm also concerned since some of the responses are just being added to discussions solely on the topic and not really considering the merits of individual discussions. That further suggests a negative impact to the discussion in violation of WP:CANVASS. Please respond on my talk page and copy this request there if you like. That way if I need to ask other admins for opinions, the discussion will be in one place. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My first thought is that this one of those nightmares I always dread on CFD. Invariably with some of the issues being the same there's going to be repetitive comments on some, but I agree that some of the comments seem to have been made without actually reading what the specific proposal is.

I'm not sure what the solution is because whenever the issue comes up it seems there's either consensus to scrap the Old Fooians form or an influx of comments leading to heated discussion, with a whiff of canvassing about it. Closing the lot as a tainted discussion may not solve anything either because it comes from the status quo side of things and would just deliver the same outcome, with the potential for encouraging others.

This is one of these messes that doesn't have an obvious solution so I'm not sure what the way forward is. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that it makes a lot of sense to deal with this question in a centralized manner, rather than one category at a time. It would seem weird to use "Old Fooian" style for some of these schools, and a different style for others. This is the kind of situation where consistency is a naming principle you can fall back on.

Why not find a way to combine all of those discussions into a community RfC on the subject? If you notify all relevant WikiProjects, that should drown out any private canvassing that might also go on. It seems silly to have dozens of conversations spread out over months, and over dozens of categories. I'm be inclined to close all those CfD's, but without prejudice to combining them into one request, and calling it a Request for comment. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if it was clear that all of these categories should be treated the same. That may well be the case. There is also another interesting question raised here if you look at the parent categories. Sorting by Old Whatever is of little value unless you know what the name of the school is. Right now the parent category here looks like a random mess with no logic to how articles appear. So maybe an RFC is the best solution to all of these problems. The question would be what is the best page for the discussion? The only one I can think of is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Are all of these schools in the UK? Perhaps their WikiProject, but Schools makes sense too. Either way, both should be notified. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is now down to India, Singapore (only one category) and the UK. All of the others have converted over to one of the three forms of designation and the school name. Different forms of designation are needed since terminology varies around the word. At this point the RFC should wait until the CfDs close. At least one needs to close as ambiguous since it lines up with another article redirect. I consider opening the RFC prior to the close so that it can be referenced in the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a few other countries as well - Pakistan, Sierra Leone (only one), Sri Lanka, Ireland and South Africa (the last two of which have so far eluded the by school category but several are in Category:People by educational institution in Ireland or Category:People by educational institution in South Africa; I'll set up the relevant categories now). All the countries involved are current or former Commonwealth countries and there may be some others lurking somewhere. Note that the forms were removed from New Zealand categories back in 2009 and from Australian ones earlier this year whilst to my knowledge the Canadian schools categories have never used it (although that that tree has surprisingly few branches). Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the RFC. There may already have been some canvassing-like - see [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and the user's edit history at [12] All of the users contacted who have since commented have been supporters of the "Old Fooians" form. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't A7 a house. People related things like, er, people, clubs and companies, yes. And for some strange reason, web content. But there's no speedy category for houses. Can't even get it on 'context' - it's too clear. I'd advise having a quick Google, then if it's not got anything much going for it, prod it. If it has, then add it to the article and get brownie points for content creation... Peridon (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case it's in Pevsner and Pevsner should be considered an a priori notability screen. Opbeith (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently re-created the category Category:Irish people of Jewish descent. You'll notice the link is red, because it was delted as per you discussion here. However, as you may notice there are many categories with the formula 'X people of Jewish descent'. And while you may disagree with labeling living people, or misuse of categories, being of Jewish descent can only be true or false. I agree 'sloppy application' of the 'X Jews' categories are given, but that is because of people who identify themselves as being (or not being) Jewish. With Jewish descent however, you cannot dispute the fact that one of your anncestors may have been Jewish, in the same way if your anncestor was African. Whatever a person says about themselves, giving that person a 'x of jewish descent' cat is true - because its true. You get what I mean.

More to the point - my re-creation of the Irish people of Jewish descent (if you click the red link above), is actually different from the version that was deleted July 9th. My version has a properly structured cat links (following standard cats of 'X people of Jewish descent'), it links to the 'Irish people by ethnic or national origin' and 'people of jewish descent by nationality', both of which are container categories. You will also notice that the category is no longer empty, and in fact has Bob Geldof in it.

I believe that all the points I have made above, counteract all of the arguements used by yourself and others to delete the (not so well maintained version) originally. Please will you allow the category to reopen in the way which was created by me? Colt .55 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ps. You were only able to delete the category because it was empty. All of you arguements could apply to any of the 'X people of Jewish descent' but you wouldn't have got away with it, because they are too well maintained.

'How can I create a new discussion to recreate it? Or if that's not how it works, what is the process? Colt .55 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help Colt .55 (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:Replay_Gain#Requested_move, your close with no consensus was perhaps based on a misreading of my opinion. Early, I expressed the opinion that the move should not happen, then later I said that it would be okay. What's the next step? Can you redo the closing of the move request or should a new request be initiated? Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the move to the proper title.Opbeith (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have moved tirthankar, which has happened without consensus. Please see how consensus was applied on the Mahatma Gandhi move. It was demonstrated there that consensus is not arithmetic. If it is a content decision kindly explain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

Just wondering why you closed the move request as "No consensus" when there clearly is? (Albeit to not move so the end result was same.) a_man_alone (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Fatanpur, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh - the RM does not show at the RM page, while requests I made before or after do show. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Now it's there, even properly sorted. So, problem solved. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, is there a set principle for the sort order for articles such as St Hilary's Church, Wallasey? I've noticed that you've changed some churches on my watchlist to sort by the title of the article instead of the existing defaultsort of the location first before the name of the church. The result is that we end up with a mess of churches sorting variously by "St", "St.", "Church of", "Old church of", "Our Lady of" etc, according to the choice of the person who created the article and gave it its name. The standard used by Category:Grade I listed churches, Category:Grade II* listed churches and Category:Grade II listed churches (and other categories) would seem to be a more logical format, sorting by place name first (e.g. Wallasey). If there isn't a principle written down somewhere to which you're working, where should we go to discuss one? See also User talk:Peter I. Vardy#sort keys for churches - neither you nor I are alone in this! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 06:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of users are repeatedly reverting my edits to cargo section of the article and keep adding airlines that dont fly freighter aircraft there, I have sent them private messages given them the airlines schedules as reference, and told them in edit summary too, but they are continuing doing the same, can you or anyone else in authority position please take care of this situation? thanks116.71.18.142 (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the move for me. I was concerned with the page protected what to do once the discussion period was over, I appreciate the help. Iarann (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can this be re-opened? I only saw the close just now, & have strong objections. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a very lovely change in the reference section of the Atlantis (newspaper) article, the code for the columns you made is there, but for some reason today, it isn't showing up as columns. I checked the history to see if I had accidentally changed something, but no, the code is there... did something happen? I'm new to Wikipedia..the article was my first.. Koheli (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind reopening this move discussion by any chance. I keep meaning to alert interested users to it on appropriate Wikiprojects and such to get more input, but it's slipped my mind. But as of now it seems weird to close it when there hasn't even been one other person giving a completely firm opinion yet, or more than two discussing it at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm...confused. Are you saying it can be reopened so we can increase the participation to more than 2 people?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Without trying to sound overly critical, I do think it is somewhat bad form to close a proposal without any solid !vote and only 2 participants, especially when the discussion was left at "let's get some more input from other users." I just don't see the harm in reopening the discussion and letting associated wikiprojects like horror know. Sure, I could just recopy and paste a new discussion right below, but that seems downright unnecessary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You closed this. Subsequently overturned by this. In the future when closing any move discussion, if there are only two or three !vs in a discussion, and the time is up, is better to relist to gather more attention, in particular when the article being renamed is a GA that was made a GA with the title being changed. And in the case of GAs and FAs it is generally a good idea to inform those involved in the process that a RM is underway, so they can bring the previous consensus into consideration. --Cerejota (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It feels like this discussion is all talked out, or very close to it. I put in a summary here. How does it get closed, and what happens thereafter?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for cleaning up after the bot's malfunction. My apologies to you and WikiProject Nevada for mis-configuring the bot. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

-I just want to start by saying I am not mad I am just confessed. Do you not realize that Fleet History, Livery and Tail art and names is repeated, the same exact paragraphs are repeated and that is what I deleted. Unless there is something wrong with my computer that is what I deleted so please explain that to me also sorry for the destination miss count. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

-Thanks, I will be sure to add an edit comment for now on. Cali4529 (talk)

Hi there. Just wondering why the change from Žiga to Ziga Pance?

All the best,

Tempo21 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Hope you don't mind me reverting your edit on the Basilica of St Denis but apart from the fact that the building wasn't really 'completed' in that year, I'm not sure that this is a very helpful or meaningful category in relation to medieval European archtecture. Quite apart from the fact that most great cathedrals were built in multiple distinct phases or campaigns, often over the course of several centuries, in the majority of cases the listed chronology is largely speculative and prone to change. Although we sometimes have consecration dates in the documentary records, those are not the same as completion dates - buildings were often consecrated some years before they were vaulted and roofed. I think the "buildings in progress " by decade categories will probably be far more useful for medieval architecture. Hope that's helpful. best wishes, Stuart. StuartLondon (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note here. I assume that is what was intended. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't very important to me or anyone else I suppose, but I'm surprised at your close of the debate about moving Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu to Madame Nhu; a single proposer with no supporting vote and single vote against hardly amounts to a consensus. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Can I ask why you chose to relist the move at Timothy Michael Dolan? It seems like a fairly cut and dry WP:COMMONNAME request, unless I'm missing something. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

== Close request ==

Could you look at this discussion and see if it isn't time to close it? It has degenerated into canvassing [13], [14] and personal attacks. Radiopathy •talk• 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to write this page without sounding like an advertisement. Was it the references that caused the page to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlcorp11 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

examples: *, *, Cretan.gr, *, *, just proper and usual name (Greece & worldwide) (terms can be easily change) --Malawiok (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, thanks for your help with the template move I requested. However, it seems that the template talk page (Template talk:NCAA team season/doc) was moved to Template:Infobox NCAA team season/doc. Template:NCAA team season/doc needs to be moved instead. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

based on info from here and here, i haven't been able to substantiate the other claims of tallest. have i missed something? --emerson7 00:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

i know wikipeda cannot be used as a source...i too have been at this quite some time. however, the template is only a mere reflection of that page. further, i could not find any evidence those properties were at any time 'the tallest' in the city. as such it is not appropriate to indicate so without proper references. --emerson7 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please revert the move for now? I'm challenging the reasoning behind it, and no one had previously responded, so unless consensus can be reached, the original state (i.e. before you moved it) should be maintained as far as I know from WP standard policy. If we reach a consensus that the move really was correct, then we can re-do it, but because I'm challenging the original reasoning I believe it should go back to the original state. Starwrath (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. An user create this article with content of Greater Armenia. I try to explain Wikipedia:Requested moves, but I could not. How can we solve this issue ? Regards. Takabeg (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Schools for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel like closing these two stragglers: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_25#People_by_school_parent_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_25#Category:Alumnae_of_Cheltenham_Ladies.27_College?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with [15] but shouldn't you sign it not just date it? Probably typo. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

did you mean to move Template:eom to Template:SpringerEOM ? Right now it redirects to SpringerEOM (not in the template namespace), so all the eom links stopped working.

Best, Sasha (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: an example of how all the eom refs look now is below. Sasha (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"A posteriori distribution", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]

Thanks! I have changed the redirect from eom to point directly to SpringerEOM, hope that's OK too. Now everything works. Sasha (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

The description line at Category:Roman Catholic churches says: « This category is for buildings that are used as churches. » Its mother Category:Catholic churches says something of the kind too.

In general when applying to congregations, the word Church takes a capital C, as opposed to lower-case church for church buildings. Note that there is already a Category:Roman Catholic Church, and Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations for organized congregations within the Church, such as monastic orders. There are many Catholic-related categories with very similar or identical descriptions, this is why I believe that we could groupe together Category:Roman Catholic churches and Category:Roman Catholic church buildings. The latter was almost empty when I first found it, but if you prefer the second name as less ambiguous I have no trouble with that. Place Clichy (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Following your answer I kept only the church building name. If you wish to rename a large number of categories from churches to church buildings, you should probably request it at WP:CFD. Thanks for your help. Place Clichy (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this request make sense in the grand scheme of the religious building categories? I'm only sort of familiar with those. Or should it just be Category:Latter Day Saint places of worship? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with Category:Latter Day Saint places of worship since that may address the problem of how you categorize a temple. I don't know if any of these count directly as a type of architecture. While I may be able to recognize a stake building (guessing here on terms) does that make it a specific recognized style of architecture? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. I think more what he's getting at is having a way for grouping all of the Latter Day Saint buildings into one category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Funny you should raise this since I was just moving a few Jewish articles. I guess today is religion day. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask if Category:Latter Day Saint places of worship would do the job. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please reopen and relist. 4-2 !votes for move is a small participation, but it is not "no consensus". Thanks!--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually small participation is only the nominator. There is no requirement that we have some number of participants to resolve a RM request. As to the specifics, there was no consensus there there to move. In my opinion that was quite clear after reading the various arguments. I will relist this to see if there are more people who wish to participate. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for relisting. Cheers!--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you to clarify your reasoning on this? Since every source available uses Johannes Ronge, I would assume that would be the way we'd name the article.

• In ictu oculi point provided a source for Johannes Ronge, and said no umlaut was used in the German sources he checked.
• Takabeg showed that no google books have von Ronge or von Rönge, and supported use of Johannes Ronge
• Bob Burkhardt supported Johannes Ronge, and said he's yet to see a page of the autobiography that used anything but Johannes Ronge
• I have found no sources that use von Ronge or von Rönge, and support use of Johannes Ronge, and pointed to a lack of hits for anything but Johannes Ronge in both google books and scholar.
• Froebelfan in opposition, refers to his personal knowledge of Ronge descendants, making some claims for which they provide no sources, and makes a claim about the German edition autobiography for which he provides no reference. He is correct that old documents in German and in English do have variants in spelling, often due to the limited characters available to the type setting and because spelling was not as formalized as today, but variants in the family name would seem to have little bearing in this particular case, since we're talking about an individual, not the family as a whole. But his assertion is completely refuted by the German edition linked in the See Also section, which uses Johannes Ronge. The family tree he mentions can't be used, not because of copyright, but because it is not a reliable source.

I just don't see lack of consensus when four editors support one title and provide verifiable and reliable sources, and one editor, who is pretty much an SPA and provides no sources or references supporting they claims favors another. WP:Title states that WP ...prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. It seems pretty clear to me that the most frequently, if not sole, named used in the English sources we have is Johannes Ronge. Please accept my apologies if I am missing something, --Nuujinn (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, thank you for reopening the discussion. From my reading of WP:RM, it seems it would be appropriate to make a neutral request for more eyes on this article there, does that seem all right to you? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have done that, thanks again, --Nuujinn (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we have consensus now, could you take a look and see what you think? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about re-formatting your comment as a reply, I mis-read it as a response to the person above you suggesting that a consensus had been reached. Toohool (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I rather failed to keep up with where consensus was going on the appropriate defaultsorts for articles about churches (real-life time pressures over the summer), and I'm not sure that I always find the right categories for them anyway. Would you mind taking a look at three church articles that I've written in the last couple of days to check the sorting and categories are as good and full as they could be? That way I can hopefully "roll out" any improvements you make to past and future articles, and save both of us some work in the future! The three in question are St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth, St Gwenllwyfo's Church, Llanwenllwyfo and Old Church of St Gwenllwyfo, Llanwenllwyfo. With best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 23:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your eye over them and your kind comments. Glad to see that you didn't need to make too many changes - I tried to follow what I seemed to remember you doing on articles on my watchlist. St Beuno's would have been a Roman Catholic church when constructed, turning into a Church of England church later (it is now Church in Wales, which grew out of the CofE in the early 20th century). So Category:13th-century church buildings doesn't have any relevant denominational subcats at the moment, although I spot a small Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings and even a Category:15th-century Anglican church buildings, which might mean that sub-cats are set up in due course for the 13th century. Incidentally, should churches be in denominational subcats according to what they were when they were built or what they are now? Bencherlite^Talk 00:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You closed this vote saying consensus not reached. I certainly agree that there was no consensus if you counted votes. However, according to the relevant Wikipedia guideline, consensus of voters is determined by "evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions". May I ask which opposing arguments you saw in the discussion that balance the arguments of support, basicly, another name is now more common? Filanca (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I reading through the discussion, what is clear is that the old name is still in regular use. While there is a drift to the proposed name, it is far from clear that this has become the common name. The point that the current name is still in widespread use is a strong argument to not change. So based on all of the comments it is clear that consensus did not exist to move this. When a change is proposed, the burden of providing proof that there is a consensus to move is on the proponents. In this case, my opinion is that they failed to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Honestly, I can not see how the popularity of such a name could be proved except from how the person who proposed this name change has done. He demonstrated another name was more than two times more common by using a google books search.Filanca (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Much the same, again, for Napoleonic code. Hope you can oblige. --Wikiain (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your work in scrutinising the list, as well as implementing the uncontroversial and consensus moves I've made. Tony (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for the Anne Fontaine pagemove. Is there any need to keep Anne Fontaine (disambiguation) and can it be deleted speedily, or is there a long drawn out process for this? Lugnuts (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. regarding this move [16] are you indeed read all discussion? You move page to the least popular English name proposed. Not mentioning community proposals. M.K. (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian. You have new messages at HardBoiledEggs's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 17:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You closed a discussion after that I posted a comment in it, excluding this my comment. Do you wish to be reported?

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have answered you on my talk page.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could you reconsider your recent "no consensus" decision at Tree shaping? The current article name is not very good at all: I think nearly everyone agrees with that. There were a couple of alternative names proposed, and the goal is to pick the best one. There is no good consensus on which of the alternatives is best, that is true. But any one of the alternatives would be better than the current name. So when some editors were opposing the move, their intentions were, I believe, to move it, but not to "aborscultpture'. For instance, lets say an article has title A, and everyone agrees it is a bad title, but half want it moved to B, and half want it moved to C. in an RM for A -> B, it may look like there is a 50/50 consensus to not move, but in fact there is a 100% consensus to move it to something other than A. An RM for A ->C would appear the same. Also, can you explain you closing comment: " This has been open for well over a month and consensus seems to still be elusive, but this needs to be closed" I didn't see a summary of the deliberations you undertook, nor your analysis of the underlying issues. Also, have you had a chance to review !votes based on involved editors vs. uninvolved editors? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say, alternatives were discussed. This is and has been a rather heated topic. Given the extensive discussions on the topic both in the RM and before and after, I saw nothing that was looking like a consensus. I don't see reopening that discussion as the best option. If there is an alternative name that looks like it has consensus, do this as a new RM. If you like, I can modify my close to strongly suggest that. Yes, I understand about consensus to move showing up as close opinions and I have done many closes that way. But in this case, that was far from clear that there was a name. At this point I think the best option is to open a new discussion with the sole purpose of using this just closed discussion, the material in the archives and the discussions on the talk page before and after the closed discussion to work through the various options and see if there really is something that can get consensus. If there is, then we should have an RM that can show a consensus in the 7 days that these are normally open for. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There were some heated RMs a year ago, and it went all the way to arbitration, which sent it back to the Talk page with instructions to do an RfC to get input from uninvolved editors. The RfC happened a few months ago, and that had decent consensus, which led to the RM. In the RM, most uninvolved editors (like myself) supported "Arborsculpture", and most of the "opposers" were involved editors. Since the current title is really lame, I just assumed that, after one year of arduous back-and-forth, the obvious thing to do would be to rename it to the name that the vast majority of uninvolved editors supported. At some point, some uninvolved admin needs to look at the arguments and pick one of the proposed alternative names (but not the current name). I was hoping the closing admin would do that. Closing as "no consensus" is just prolonging the current poor name, and will add many more months to the pain. Another RM will probably just have the same outcome as this last one. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. Since this was a long and complex debate, could you please post a bit more about your close? The 2010 AfD had a nice summary from RegentsPark, so that's a bit more what's needed here, is a summary of pros and cons, the strength of the arguments, and why you, as closing admin, felt that consensus had not been reached. This will help not only now, but perhaps in the future, if/when we look back on the discussion, it will be very helpful to have a clearly written summary. Thanks, --Elonka 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the request to reconsider. The present title seems to be the least supported and least supportable - it would be unfortunate if the article were forced to remain there just because there isn't universal agreement on what the best title should be.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I too would also like to ask you to reconsider your decision to close the discussion 'no consensus' and ask you a few questions

Sandstein, had shown an interest in closing the RfM but you stepped in at the last moment to do so. What was the reason for that?

Did you notice that you closed the discussion a few hours after Blackash, who was banned by Arbcom from the naming debate had commented?

Were you aware that 3 editors were banned by arbcom from participating in the naming debate but still voted anyway and that one other near SPA voted against the move?

Were you aware that all 5 uninvolved editors who came as a result of the RfC supported the move?

We were asked by Arbcom to have an RfC to get new input on the naming debate. 100% of this new input supported the move. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your change of heart. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian I would like to point out that Martin is stretching some facts

• "3 banned by arbocom from participating" were in fact allow to do so in the arbcom decision Proposed remedies this even was taken for clarification [17] which resulted in the Arbitrators supporting the limited comments from banned editors.
• "new imput" No where in the Arbcom decision did it state that only outside editors views count.
• Omissions can also be misleading. Arbocom stated "This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case." It was closed on 15th of July I believe it would have been better for you to have given a closing summary rather than reopen the RM discussion, at least once the RM is closed then the talkpage could move on the next step, which it had just started to before you reopened the RM. Blackash have a chat 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Vegaswikian, hi, since you have reverted your close, could you please participate in the discussion at Talk:Tree_shaping#Thread at WP:AN, explaining your rationale? It would be better to keep information there, rather than scattered on different talkpages. Thanks, --Elonka 04:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I explained in the edit summary why protocol should be dropped. The article discusses the service element, of which the ROSE protocol is just one part. See the ITU standards specification. I won't bother anymore than that, though. Nageh (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work recategorizing architecture articles. Know that it is noticed and appreciated. IvoShandor (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've restructured the bot's approach to pushing updates and frequency seems to have improved. We'll have to let this run for a few more days to be sure. The timing of the bot's edits seems to largely be due to the lack of new move requests - in a small sample of recent updates, every edit introduced one new move request. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention, and if there are any issues, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 06:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the user page bug, I'll look into that when I have a chance. --Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 07:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. Just thought I'd drop in and say thanks for your attention to the RM for French Quarter. As you'd expect, I consider your decision to be deeply wrong; but I say it is the existing guidelines for RMs that are at fault – along with the Byzantine modes of interpretation that have crept up around them like ancient, woody twists of ivy. Let me put it on record: I have not the slightest ill feeling about this. In fact, while I would have preferred a revealing and well-formed title for the article, responding to how actual information-seeking works, I am delighted to have this extended example of how dysfunctional the system has become. When we look to reform it (which really has to happen), this case will be an essential point of reference.

In all sincerity, your work is appreciated. Best wishes!

Noetica^Tea? 10:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Vegas, good work all-round with article titles; it's appreciated. I too disagree strongly with the result, but you had no choice given the flavour of the discussion. Tony (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As with "Tree shaping", could you please at least reconsider your close regarding capitalisation of "code" in Napoleonic code. As Kuralyov and I have pointed out, of four contributors on the proposal that the article should be renamed "Napoleonic Code" three are in favour and they include the two who have a specialised knowledge of the subject, while the sole objector has been knowledgeable only about the general meaning of the word "code" and has not sustained his objection. I can't see how this does not amount to sufficient support for the change. --Wikiain (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Vegaswikian for your response on that page, suggesting a new request, which I have made. --Wikiain (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

When "Teledyne Brown Engineering" is entered on Wikipedia,the page "Teledyne" comes up. A previous request resulted in a page "User: Raymond C. Watson, Jr./Teledyne Brown Engineering." I received an email today saying that you had corrected this, but there has been no change.

My original message was as follows:

Prior to 29 March 2011, there was an article "Teledyne Brown Engineering". On that date, Radio Fan merged this article to the parent article "Teledyne". I requested that this be reversed, but on 8 June 2011 Radio Fan moved it to "User: Raymond C. Watson, Jr./Teledyne Brown Engineering". It is requested that this be moved back to the original "Teledyne Erown Engineering" so it can be correctly accessed and updated.

I do not understand why this request is so complicated. Please do the following

1. Remove the forwarding of "Teledyne Brown Engineering."

2. Change the "User: Raymond C. Watson, Jr./Teledyne Brown Engineering" to simply "Teledyne Brown Engineering."

I will then update the information on "Teledyne Brown Engineering."

Please reply if you do not understand my request, or, if you do not have the authority for this change, provide me contact information for a qualified Editor/Administrator. Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see a similar discussion at Talk:Shelly Yachimovich. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed U.S. Post Office (Greybull, Wyoming) was still at the abbreviated name, so I moved it over its redirect, but Talk:United States Post Office (Greybull, Wyoming) has two edits, so it didn't move. Can you take care of that move when you have a chance? Thanks. Station1 (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. U.S. Post Office (Douglas, Wyoming) has a similar situation with its talk page. I won't even try to move that one. Station1 (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Greybull now looks fine. Douglas has a mismatched talk page (looks like same thing happened to you as happened to me with Greybull). Station1 (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! - btw, thanks for your work on moving these pages. I just cleaned up the NY section of the dab page and will try to do some others later. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These are all that I can find:

• Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse (Dothan, Alabama)
• Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)
• Sitka U.S. Post Office and Court House
• Old U.S. Customshouse and Post Office and Fireproof Storage Company Warehouse
• Old U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (Miami, Florida)
• Old U.S. Post Office and Courts Building (Jefferson, Texas)
• U.S. Customs House and Post Office (Pensacola, Florida)
• U.S. Post Office (Champaign, Illinois)
• U.S. Custom House (Baltimore, Maryland)
• U.S. Custom House (Charleston, South Carolina)
• U.S. Custom House (Mayagüez, Puerto Rico)
• U.S. Customhouse (Kennebunkport, Maine)
• U.S. Customhouse (Niagara Falls, New York)
• U.S. Customhouse (Oswego, New York)
• U.S. Customs House (Ponce, Puerto Rico)
• U.S. Customshouse (Barnstable, Massachusetts)
• U.S. Customshouse (Providence, Rhode Island)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture South Building
• U.S. Post Office (Champaign, Illinois)
• U.S. Post Office (Powell, Wyoming)

Cheers! bd2412 T 13:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Here's one more: Little Rock U.S. Post Office and Courthouse. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I declined your speedy deletion request on E · WORLD 83Tower. As a building, it doesn't fall under A7; however, I prodded it as lacking notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, I guess only administrators can do this. Can you try once more to relist the requested move of National Academy of Sciences? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick message back. Can you tell how to do this? I have not found the procedure for this. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it got relisted. The only strange thing is that my relisting text added is not visible in the generated section Wikipedia:Requested moves#October 13, 2011. Why? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 21:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I keep an eye on it. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 21:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You could get it to work. As I understand well the "–" in front is important, so – <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small>. SchreyP ^(messages) 12:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:"Occupy" protests#What is the guideline or policy?. If this link is not working correctly go to the talk section called "What is the guideline or policy?". It is a subsection heading under the "Requested move 2" talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for fixing Talk:Kallawaya, so it corresponds with the article again! -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hi. I noticed you moved the FIU Golden Panthers (and related) pages to "Florida International". There was an equal vote on the talk page at "FIU Golden Panthers" to move and keep, and a consensus was not made to move the pages. The university and athletics department have clearly stated (as referenced here on page 1: FIU Athletics media guide) that the teams and university only be referred to as "FIU". Additionally, the local media, student body and alumni all refer to the university as FIU, never as Florida International.

Here are more various examples of the exclusive use of "FIU" not "Florida International":

Miami Herald (Miami's primary newspaper): Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel (region's second-largest newspaper): Sun-Sentinel, ESPN: ESPN 1 ESPN 2

I could continue. The standard is always "FIU". I kindly request that this move be undone, thank you.--Comayagua99 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The university's official media guide dictates the university be referred to as "FIU" as I cited here: FIU Athletics. Additionally, the local media, community and students refer to the university only as "FIU". I sent you a couple examples of that above. I believe these are strong arguments for keeping it as "FIU" instead of changing these pages for the sake of it "being less descriptive". There's only one FIU, there is no confusion to what university it is. Other schools that follow this standard are: UCF LSU UCLA NYU BYU--Comayagua99 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The official name of the team is the "FIU Golden Panthers". The university's official naming standards dictates that. "Florida International Golden Panthers" is never used save for occasionally by ESPN. My appeal follows WP:OFFICIAL. The university's official names are "FIU Golden Panthers". According to Wikipedia:Article titles, Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, "FIU Golden Panthers" satisfies that as it is 1. recognizable, "FIU" is the official naming standard, similarly used by universities such as UCF, UCLA, NYU, etc; it is unambiguous, there is no confusion as to another "FIU", there is only one such acronym on Wikipedia; and it is consistent with reliable English-language sources- all sources given all point to the university referred to as "FIU" only.

You state that in your opinion, the consensus was in favor of a name change, however, the consensus was evenly split. Those that voted 'moved' voted so, on three points:

1. FIU won't mean much to anyone not aware of American college athletics. In the article itself, "FIU" can be used once the full institution name is mentioned (i.e. – "blah blah Florida International University (FIU) blah blah...").- This editor recommended introducing the teams as "Florida International University" in the beginning, and "FIU" thereafter. The "FIU Golden Panthers" page satisfies this. It clearly identifies the university in the introduction, so any possible confusion is clarified within the first sentence. Additionally, being unaware of American college athletics, is a separate problem to the naming convention of a team.

2. it's not what you call yourself that counts, its what others call you.- We've already clarified that the university's official policy is "FIU" solely. However, this editor says the naming should follow what others call the university. Sources that the local media (newspapers, radio and television), students, SUS of Florida SUS, alumni, etc. all refer to the university as "FIU", not "Florida International".

3. FIU is less descriptive than Florida International. ESPN uses "Florida International"- FIU is less descriptive in the same sense that "UCF", "LSU" or "NYU" is less descriptive, but there is no confusion as to what the "UCF Knights" are there. There is only one "FIU" anything on Wikipedia. ESPN is one source, and the only one that uses "Florida International", and even ESPN also uses "FIU" (see sources above). We have one source (ESPN), versus a plethora of others that use "FIU".

"FIU Golden Panthers" is the most appropriate, as it is not only the common name, but the official name from within and outside the university. I've yet to read a logical reasoning for moving them. Unless one can be made, I'm going to revert the changes.--Comayagua99 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. I am closing some backlogged requested moves, and this one had a note from you to leave a message on your talk page if a merge was decided. It looks to me like a merge is the best option, but in the three weeks since you relisted the move request, there have been no further comments. fish&karate 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider this closure [18]? I consider that move fairly uncontroversial, but the target is blocked by the redirect. I think I thoroughly explained the rationale, and the current title is just too ambiguous. The sole remark was by Kauffner, who does not seem well versed in the circumstances, so his comment was fairly off the target. No such user (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:PRECISION springs to mind: "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." I state that Petrovac, Bosnia and Herzegovina is imprecise, because it leads to confusion with nearby Bosanski Petrovac (literally, "Bosnian Petrovac"), which is a relatively major town. Just see what Google gives on that query. There's hardly an English common name, because this is a small municipality with <1000 people created in 1997, obscure even in local circles.

Official sources usually call the entity "Petrovac" (Government order, Government agency) or "Petrovac–Drinić" (Telecom, Business listing). Their own hompage [sic] has "Petrovac–Drinić" throughout, but "Municipality of Petrovac" in the heading. Association of cities and towns has "Petrovac" in heading, and "Petrovac–Drinić" in text. (Note that they all feel some kind of disambiguation is called for).

The bottom line is that the article should be moved somewhere, as the current title is simply confusing. Lack of a clear target and absence of participation is not a reason to keep the bad title. Either Petrovac, Republika Srpska or Petrovac–Drinić (en dash, I guess) are much better titles. No such user (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipedia:Wikiproject Airlines". Thank you. --Jetstreamer (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus to move the page to the correct spelling is more than abundantly clear: reliable sources verify the capitalisation, and no one defending the various MoS guidelines was able to address the issue of artist intent trumping blind adherence to the MoS. The Beatles titled their album a particular way, and it is not Wikipedia's place to create its own reality. Radiopathy •talk• 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No Reply? Radiopathy •talk• 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What you consider to be unacceptable blind adherence to the MoS, is not a reason to throw out those opinions. WP:OFFICIAL also shows that we don't always use official names which seems to be your main objection to the title. So, I'm comfortable with the no consensus to move close. There was no consensus and WP:OFFICIAL was not even discussed, but WP:ALBUMCAPS was and was not countered. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment about the Template:Las Vegas TV is not entirely justified. First off, the issue has nothing to do with the browser. Secondly, you have to take into account that not everybody uses a widescreen monitor for their computer; the edits were to take this fact into account; and the "random" line breaks were carefully chosen in order to fit monitors with a 4:3 screen size. TVtonightOKC (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there's something in the system that kept a lot of the tagged talk pages for the recently speedy-renamed "SFBA" cats from changing to the new cat names, despite the cat in the {{WikiProject California}} template being properly targeted and the cats on the talk pages themselves displaying correctly. Perfoming null edits on the pages in question rests them to the correct target. I did a bunch but it's downright tedious... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The process is performed by the job queue. It can sometimes take weeks. No need to null edit the lot, just a need for patience. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't realise it was on the slow boat to China. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Vegaswikian! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by August 12, 2011.

The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Any chance you would ask for a re-open and/or review of the yoghurt/yogurt close at WP:ANI? An objective response is probably more likely if it comes from an admin. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that I want to start that. I'm so far behind on the other things I'm working on. I believe that anyone can put together a case given the materials presented and the closers apparent admission that he did not consider important facts. So anyone can raise the issue. My comments are on record on the admins talk page and an admin opening the case should not be material. Admins are just editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you re-open/relist the debate? There was barely any attention paid to it, and one of the "oppose" votes is a falsely applied "close now".—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus here and the previous no consensus close, I'm not sure that reopening it will yield addition input that will result in a move. Attention is not an issue to closing since many actions proposed at RM have no input at all. The fact that his one had a discussion twice without convincing support for moving is far from no attention. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Two ties are not examples of what I would call "no convincing support".—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I would call that a clear lack of consensus to support the proposed move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)}}

Well, it's a lack of consensus to do anything. Inaction is merely what is the only allowed action to take on behalf of the closer.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think something's gone wrong in the page move you performed at Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya to Visvesvaraya. Can you fix it? (Interestingly, I faced a similar problem on a page move on the Sanskrit Wikipedia; still can't figure out what went wrong there, the history seems to have been erased. Let me know how you will fix this, so I can do the same where I have a problem). Thanks, Lynch7 14:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. AFAICS there was a delete at 02:14 to make way for move, immediately followed by the move also at 02:14, then another delete and move at 02:27 which moved the redirect from Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya, which left Visvesvaraya redirecting to itself.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, odd; I'll see what's wrong over there at my wiki. I lost all the history there. Thanks guys, Lynch7 03:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wiki ian#Fixed

Hi Ed, Thanks for expressing your concern on my recent edit summaries. Allow me to explain my actions.
On this particular occasion I was contributing to the WikiProject Hotels project, by going through hundreds of talk pages and rating those articles according to their quality. I have no knowledge on how to create/use/maintain bots and have to undertake page one by one. In order to get these 250 odd edits completed in the one sitting, I created few key words for edit summaries (i.e. Fixed=Corrected a redirect and Tagged=either added or completed project page ratings Template). While I know my actions are not recommended protocol and will endeavour to be more descriptive in my edits from now on, I hope you can appreciate this was for the greater good of the project. Any further queries, please dont hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards, Wiki ian 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only was this premature, and arguable that there was consensus, your rationale is invalid. Page activity does not indicate where people go after they land on Syzygy. We have no idea how people get to the respective pages. E.g. It is doubtful that many people know there is an X-Files episode name Syzygy, rather they are getting to the article by other means. The last support argument, that the astronomical sense is the given definition of Syzygy, what could be more convincing? --TimL (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The arguments for the move were weak and since it is not a vote, the points raised by the opposer actually carried more weight. As I said in the close, if someone can produce some facts that the proposed move is in fact the primary use of the name, then this should be reconsidered. Based on what was presented and the page views, there is no established primary topic. All of your points above are based on suppositions that may or may not be correct. Nothing is hurt by leaving things were they are. However moving a page to the main name space when it is not the primary topic would. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegas, I saw you changed the category on St John's cathedral into Category:16th-century church buildings. I just don't quite get how this could be an improvement. This building, same as most other medieval cathedrals, has evolved over many centuries. In this case from the 13th to 16th century. This category thus seems actually less accurate than the previous one. Is this a solution you invented by yourself? In my opinion, things would better have been left the way they were. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Same line: you added to St. Thomas Church, Leipzig, the cat Category:20th-century Lutheran church buildings. The cat has no description. Does it include any Lutheran church extant in the 20th century? What about the 21st? The 19th? ... The church existed in all these and more, why single out the 20th? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (I'm watching here). If it's when the church was built I am even more surprised, because it was built in the 15th century. ??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually a more precise answer would be when the church building was built. So if there were multiple buildings then you could have several categories, one for each version of the building. If the denominations that built the buildings changes then that would be reflected in the century categories. I'm just doing cleanup based on some of the less specific categories I'm trying to cleanup. To really fix an article like the one you pointed out requires a lot more work and the article text is not always helpful. For your article, Category:1490s architecture probably should be dropped and Category:12th-century church buildings and Category:15th-century church buildings (or Category:15th-century Roman Catholic church buildings or Category:15th-century Lutheran church buildings) added. The establishment and disestablishment of the monastery should also be noted in the categories. But sorting through all of those details can be very time consuming. The categories for the monastery probably should be in a redirect so the the categories here are less confusing about what they apply to. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I must miss something. First: It's not "my" article (even if a picture from it is on top of my user page). Second: What we have today is mostly Category:1490s architecture, consecrated in 1496. We don't even know how the 12th century building looked like, why do you think to categorize it as "building"? Do you happen to know that the Reformation began in 1517, so 15th century Lutheran is nonsense. Many churches in Germany changed denomination during the 16th century, would you want to have both cats then? - I think to have cats in a redirect would be even more confusing. - Once we consider that church: I am also not happy about the "monument" cat, the monument stands outside the church. - Sometimes less is more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The 15th century category would require some thought since the article does not make clear which denomination was active at the time which is why the first choice may be the best. As to the monument, that would be best moved to a redirect where it would be clear that it was about the monument and that the church is not a monument. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you hear me: there was no Lutheran denomination before mid 16th century! Allerheiligen-Hofkirche: is there any cat to say was completely damaged in World War II, so if you expect to see a 19th century building you will be disappointed. THAT building is monument to the destruction of the war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you. I offered options to illustrate that there may not be one 'solution'. If one of those does not work, you don't use it, you pick the one that is best. Also if you would have looked at Category:15th-century church buildings you would see a note about the beginning of Protestantism. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I read about the Roman Catholic Church, it is not very precise and sounds to me as if the "Roman" entered the name only in 1908 and only occasionally, that would mean all cats with Roman before the 20th century are also not to the point. I know many Catholic parishes, none of them has "Roman" in their name. - I still see 20th century for the Thomaskirche, what is that supposed to mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories tend to use one name in a tree. So with current usage being Roman Catholic, all of the older categories also use that term. The exception here is if you go back to say maybe for an example to discuss, Category:9th-century church buildings, there is no denomination breakout. In fact Catholic is not even used. Taking Roman Catholic back to before the split with Eastern Orthodoxy would likely be an error. However, experts in that area, and I have not claimed to be one like you apparently are, would be the best to offer alternatives and provide guidance. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert, just see something strange in the existence Category:15th-century Lutheran church buildings, which should be empty because it's nonsense but contains one church, and I offer(ed) the alternative to drop the word "Roman" from all "Catholic" cats, in the same way as we say "cello" instead of "violoncello". I also offer(ed) the alternative to have categories such as "... demolished in World War II", "... restored after World War II". and still don't know what to think of 20th century for the Thomaskirche. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Vegas, I normally answer the question on the original talk page, so I copied my reply to your answer to here as well. I understand that this is a discussion closed some time ago with general consensus, so I'll leave it at that. I just notice that Wikipedia is getting increasingly complicated, which perhaps is a bit disheartening to new contributors, or worse. I love the simplicity of Wikipedia's first years, because it was easier and more inviting to newcomers, but I understand it is better to be logical and specific. Thanks for your lengthy reply, all the best, --Satrughna (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps it's best to leave the current structure of categories as is, but change the names, for example from "16th century churches" into "churches completed in the 16th century". By adding the word "completed" the timing of the cathedral is marked more precisely, leaving no room for these discussions and vagueties as to how and when. Could you agree with that?--Satrughna (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Using completed was discussed as I recall and it did not receive consensus. Feel free to nominate one or two of these as a trial at WP:CFD to see if you can get consensus on this type of change. I will point out that completed is not without problems since some editors, at least one in particular, see these buildings as never being completed since they can undergo significant changes over time. These run from rebuilding, to major repairs, to changing of facades, to adding extensions, to adding towers and so on. While this was discussed in the CfD, that does not mean that all editors like the consensus. I will note that while this tree does not include completed, all of the subcategories by year, as evidenced by Category:Religious buildings by century, use completed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for moving Magna Mater (band)! I've set up the Magna Mater (disambiguation) page as mentioned in the move request (with the addition of one other Roman goddess called the Magna Mater...), and done the relinking of appropriate Magna Mater links. Allens (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the Batwoman article these are two different characters: Kathy Kane (1956 - 1979) and Kate Kane (2006 - Present). Peter E. James (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. The move request of Eletrobrás Furnas was closed as non-controversial. However, it needs administrator's help as the targed page Eletrobras Furnas should be deleted before moving. Could you help with this? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Future spaceflights has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GW… 10:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This disagrees with my intuition for categorization. Should a historic lodge and hotel be categorized as a residence? —EncMstr (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will agree that hotels might be problematic. However hotels are residences for many people. In fact many hotel articles talk about their residents. Howard Hughes lived in a hotel in Vegas. There are many examples of this. In fact the way laws are written, they impose a minimum stay for buildings and generally don't care how long someone stays. Then you have the segment of hotels like Budget Suites or Homewood Suites that really do function as residences for individuals. The current version of the residence article probably needs updating to reflect the real world. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov resided in a hotel for his last many years as did Nikola Tesla. Edison (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the move. Keep up the good work! ("Oleo strut" always sounded like a particularly greasy dance move). Edison (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. Given that there was significant opposition to moving Lemass Era, I would appreciate it if you would at least explain your reasoning for executing the move. Powers ^T 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What do we do with this kind of editing?: Step 1, then Step 2. I recall there may be some sort of guideline on when categories should go on articles vs. on categories of the same name? Or is it still just an ad hoc free-for-all at this stage? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is covered by the requirement that a category's categories apply to all of the contents of the category. This is the big reason for the named after series, since at some point you get to where everything is so diverse that you can't have any parent categories. Categories are not places to hide other categories that belong in the parent article. Categories are places to have multiple categories that will apply to multiple closely related articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, that was pretty much my understanding. This particular editor appears to be quite "anti-" the named after series of categories, and he has been removing them from categories he comes across on-and-off for several months. I asked him to stop recently, and he blew his top—it sounds like he's got some issues from having disagreed with me about something in the past. So I'm unsure where to go from here. It's probably dealt with best by someone other than me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

One other point with these is that not having the article in many of these categories is confusing. Especially if someone is looking for it. I know I have run into issues about moving articles into subcategories in the past when other editors want them in the main category for completeness. I think I ran into this in a bridge category where having the articles in both a correct category and in a subcategory what also contained the category that was in the article (if that makes sense). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very true. I guess I will just keep an eye on it, and if it continues to be an issue, perhaps I'll raise it in a public forum so that someone else can approach the editor in the future. It looks like he has a "thing" with dealing with me, especially on category issues. (If I remember correctly, I think once I refused his speedy deletion request after he manually emptied a category and immediately nominated it for speedy deletion. That got his goat, and it looks like he won't let it go.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a question on NRHP templates at wt:nrhp that concerns you. Doesn't look like a big deal though. I see you fixing things all over the place. Keep up the good work. Thanks Smallbones (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian -- I agree there's a general issue with date-built categories for NRHP articles, though not necessarily with all of your edits. For example, this edit of yours for Wickham Road Historic District dropped a date-specific category, when the dates of building are explicitly given in the article (as circa 1835 and two other circa years). I think you might not have read the article specifically (understandable, given the volume you are working with). Given the facts of dates are known as well as they ever will be for this one, what should the categories be? I would honestly like to know. Cheers. --doncram 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 16.
Message added 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Vegaswikian: A few months ago (September 28, 2011) you nominated a CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 28#Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent. Unfortunately, editors who have worked on the dozens, more probably perhaps even hundreds, of categories effected by the CfD were not aware of your nomination. I would have liked to participate in the discussions but I had no clue they were taking place. Please, in the future, when nominating articles or categories relating to any aspect of Jews and Judaism could you please place a notice, per WP:EQ, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism (WP:DELJEW) in the relevant section. You should the also place a "{{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small>" template within the actual CfD to indicate that you have notified the WP:DELJEW. Thank you. Another helpful suggestion would also be that before you consider any major moves against Jews and Judaism articles or categories you first seek out the input of experienced Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM to build WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks again for all your attention to this, and please feel free to be in contact with me about this or anything else relating to this subject. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I note you've relisted the RM for The Tunbridge Wells / Pembury Hospital article. As nobody else has commented it won't do any harm to leave it open another week.

The article was originally at Pembury Hospital. It was boldly moved to The Tunbridge Wells Hospital (nowt wrong with that), a move which I reverted per WP:COMMONNAME. At this point, discussion should have taken place, but it didn't, and the move was re-done. As an Admin, I know better than to get involved in edit and page move wars, hence the opening of a RM. My thoughts are that in this case, unless there is strong opposition to moving the article back to its original title, that should be the result of the RM (i.e apply BRD, not BRRD). I've no objection in principle to there being two separate articles, but I'm not gonna write an article on the new building on the old site. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you closed the "Journalism-themed" discussion on October 30. Are you up for closing this multi-part discussion from the same day as well?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - After a move discussion that you closed at List of French residents-general in Morocco, the move has been reverted. Can you please prevent further undiscussed moves. Thank you --Tachfin (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Text you removed was added in good faith - let's be constructive - see article's talk page. Marshall46 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Environmental impact of petroleum industry has been moved. It should be Environmental impact of the petroleum industry. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the title idea...it's better than any other proposed. I mainly discuss effects to the Ogallala Aquifer, but I suppose others can add more info on other potential hazards with this more open title. (570ajk (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

Hello, young fellow. Thanks for facilitating the Estienne move. Or, at least, I assume it is to you that thanks are due. Anyway, never mind. The point is this: in the past (for example, in the case of the Renault FT name change) it's been pointed out to me that correcting a misconception leads to challenges or reversions from people who believe the misconception to be true, and that leads to all sorts of headaches. Would you, therefore, recommend that a line be added to the article, explaining the absence of the hyphen, etc ?

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Which ever side you take, someone else will not agree." Exactly. Is it, therefore, not best to add a note of explanation, with references? Hengistmate (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian! We need some consensus quickly regarding listing of UA/CO destinations in airport articles. Please come to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#CO.2FUA_SOC_2011-11-30 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, HkCaGu (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Re your dropping of the category, are you sure that this is correct. The building was designed in 1813, but not completed until 1816 due to the financial situation of the person who commissioned its erection. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you've put the terminology cat back in a few articles. Could you take a look at User:DexDor#Current_projects, which explains the reasons for the changes to categorizations, and let me know whether you agree or not. Thanks, DexDor (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the article is terminology, it belongs in the terminology categories. If is wrong to move it into a category about airlines when it is not an airline. The bottom line is that the category you are moving the article to must be correct. So in the one or two cases that I undid your change with a detailed edit comment, this was the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it appears you recently moved the page Prince Gong (Qing dynasty). I do not believe the "Qing Dynasty" portion is necessary, since he is obviously the most commonly known Prince Gong in English literature. If you can, please just move it to Prince Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw on the George Knapp article you were looking for info on which national Edward Murrow award Knapp won. According to the RTDNA website his station won the 2005 (not 2004) award for work on voter fraud. Doesn't mention Knapp specifically though.Nevadaresident (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a post-move discussion on a rather hasty RM discussion that you closed. –HTD 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing after one week is normal and not hasty. Also there was no opposition to the move expressed. The only issue was which version of the name in English to use. Yes, there was a discussion that closed in 2009 without consensus to move. But having a second discussion does not mean we should be allowing more time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, you wrote: "It has to be defining to be in a category" and removed a bunch of categories. To some extent, you create a discontinuity (send to an orphanage, so to speak) between that article and other articles in the subject matter. Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You added the update tag to ArcelorMittal Orbit - that tag refers to descriptions on the talk page. Please can you add there a note of your concerns. -- Beardo (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A38 (dairy product), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Long enough to pass A3. This is about a product not a corperation,. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Guerillero | My Talk 06:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You do splendid work and are an exemplary admin, particularly on RM. Can I ask, is it possible for the nominator of an RM to ask an admin such as yourself to withdraw/close it? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought some one would know what had gone wrong with the CFD nom. I made several attempts at fixing it, but on previewing none were right. I therefore inlcuded an error message on thje CFD page to enable some one more knowledgeable to fix it. Merry Christmas! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Stonyfield Farm, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please be sure your edit summary accurately describes your edit. SummerPhD (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:List of pies, tarts and flans#Page move to new this new name. We are having second thoughts. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you please revert the controversial move recently made by Saint0wen. He moved moved Ales Kranjc to Aleš Kranjc over a redirect, and clearly ignoring the edit history and talk page for this article. Recent discussion have confirmed that moves involving diacritics are controversial and therefore must go the RM route. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also please revert per WP:BRD the diacritics related move made by Pavel Vozenilek against Igor Bobcek. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remember the performing actions on behalf of a sanctioned user is meatpupptry and is not acceptable. The changes you made on his behalf have been reverted. If he wishes to move the article he is more than welcome to take it to Rfm. -DJSasso (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, moving an article based on the edit history is not meatpupptry. Wheel waring is a bigger problem. Wheel waring for an article you are involved in is a much bigger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes wheel warring would be a much bigger problem, but wheel warring only happens when you revert my revert of you. And moving it based on the edit history would be fine which is why I left Igor Bobcek alone since there was no evidence Jenks was asked to move that one, however you moved it based on his coming here and asking you to which is meatpuppetry, you did not go to the article on your own and make the action, you did it at his request. Not to mention you are very much involved in the diacritics issue yourself after having voted in a few of them and making a number of controversial closes. You should not be taking admin action in this area since you are very much an involved editor at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am appalled that User:Djsasso‎ has uncivilly attacked both you another admin[19] [20] [21] to falsely accuse you of being a meatpuppet. Your reversion of a clearly controversial move was properly made in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and for that admin to abuse his powers to edit war, and to continue to push his pro-diacritics agenda is shameful. I am not the only editor who is concerned about his behaviour as evidenced by the User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9#Dios 'yet again' discussion on his talk page. Djsasso has ignored all warnings about abusing his admin powers to make controversial moves, most recently here. Something should really be done to reign this guy in as his editing has now past the point of being disruptive. Dolovis (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And now we have 'yet another' editor with a 'sporadic editing history' who is controversially moving articles (see edit history of Thomas280784). Dolovis (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is standard practice to move articles like this. You have been shown this time and again. It is you who is making the situation controversial. The wiki has proceeded like this for years and years before you arrived. There was almost no controversy in the situation until you started edit warring with everyone possible to get your way in regards to diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of what a meatpuppet is? A meatpuppet is someone coming and doing something at the request of another in an attempt to get their preferred way in a discussion. You are constantly running all over wikipedia trying to remove diacritics. The community imposed a ban on you from moving articles because of the problems you were creating and your lack of willing to discuss in a centralized forum. When you came here and asked him to make the move for you, it was clearly so that you could get the articles back to your desired form (aka getting your way in a discussion) which is the definition of acting as a meatpuppet and to circumvent the exact reason for being banned. (ie you constantly reverting every one over and over again even when the moves are not always controversial). You are an extremely disruptive user who refuses to work with the community to come to a solution instead you try to fight it out on every single page to wear out your opposition. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pure rubbish. You and your cabal of like-minded POV editors imposed an article move ban on me to bully me from performing policy-approved BRD edits on controversial moves. Just because you were able to throw your weight around on me, does not mean that you have carte blanche to continue your attempted pro-diacritics fait accompli. And here you now are calling other respected editors meatpuppets and trying to bully them as well. Controversial moves must follow RM, and you are not above that requirement. Dolovis (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is the POV warrior it is you, you have tried to argue your case on many many pages and often see the consensus against you and then disappear from the discussion to try an reach an acceptable solution to both sides. To be frank it is you attempting to perform a fait accompli by running around trying to scrounge up every player who has ever played the game with diacritics in his name so you can create it without them before anyone else can to the point where people have questioned the notability of many of them. If you acted in a civilized manor with people and stuck to a centralized discussion instead of edit warring and finding ways to "win" such as your creating of redirects with two edits to prevent others from being able to move articles you wouldn't have been banned. It's no one's but your own fault you got banned. Controversial moves have to go the RfM route once they have been objected to most certainly. But that doesn't prevent the initial bold move which anyone can make at any time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The way in which DJSasso misconstrue the facts is shameful, and his apparent lack of understanding of policy is appalling. There should be a review of DJSasso's status as an administrator. Dolovis (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Vegas, FYI - I reopened this RM at the request of an editor, but will recuse myself from the subsequent close to ensure impartiality. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I will not close this one again, although I suspect the result is the same as the previous one. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I've seen it. Point me in the right direction. --Mike Cline (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you voted on during a previous deletion debate that led to a no consensus decision nearly six years ago has been relisted for deletion. It should be noted that there have been a considerable amount of edits to the article since then. Therefore you may be interested in offering your commentary at the current deletion debateLuciferWildCat (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

V, thanks for all your great service in closing RMs, contentious and otherwise. I even agree with you result on the Hindenburg Omen, where I and most others wanted to downcase it; in trying to answer your request for sources that use lower case, I wasn't able to find the one book that I had found before. So be it; we do determine proper names by consistent capitalization in reliable sources. Good call. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the move request at Talk:People_(disambiguation)#Requested move, I am curious: what is the formal standard for a consensus? By my count there was one vote in favor (mine), none against, and some comments neither for or against. If no one had commented at all, would that have been consensus? Or does it require a threshold of votes in favor? --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that after moving it, the article now at "Personal identity" now consists of nothing but a redirect to itself, and has no history of the older content. Likewise the redirect at the old title ("Personal identity (philosophy)"). What happened? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Personal identity, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Discontinuities and Similarity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi. Could you take a look at 200 West Street when you have a chance? You had previously move-protected it for a year after some move warring by User:Jerchel, and it looks like he's back. I don't have any strong feelings about the name, but it's obviously controversial and needs to go through RM. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your work in Nov on the Genesee Park page, and wondered if I can enlist your help with an idea I can't fathom how to do: working with categories/subcategories and other WP admin things like redirects and dabs. (In return, I can offer decent copyediting services, should you ever need them!)

One: Please check out the [22] page, which currently shows two subcats for the two Natl Forests. I don't fully understand the pros and cons of using subcats vs. main cats, but I wondered whether the two other major public landowners (Dnv Mtn Parks and Jeffco Open Space) should have their own subcats. We have a Denver Mountain Parks page already, and I'm (sort of) slowly working on a stub page for JCOS; see User:Araucana/sandbox.

Two: If you check the sandbox, you'll see a table in progress listing JCOS parks, similar to the one I created for DMP. I was checking the links this a.m., and noticed that Apex Park redirects to a page that seems only distantly related (Burnham-on-Sea, scanned and found only one minor mention), and there are several other Apexes mentioned in WP ([23]) as well, incl. an Apex Park and Recreation District here I've never heard of! (I've followed JCOS for many many years...I'll check this one out.) I can, and will, simply rename the link to Apex Park (Colorado) but I wonder if a dab page is called for in a case like this. If so, I'd like to see this link go to the dab page instead of its current destination.

Sorry to add to your to-do list, but I truly hope you can help or provide some guidance! Thanks in advance... --Araucana (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To do lists are fun right? A simple view on subcategories is that they are good when all of the entries belong in multiple categories. So if you have a bunch of windmills built in Foo, they would go in a category like Category:Windmills in Foo which would have a local building category of Category:Buildings and structures in Foo and the broader one for windmills say Category:Windmills. Now in the case of Category:Protected areas of Jefferson County, Colorado, is everything in Category:Arapaho National Forest a protected area? If not, then Category:Arapaho National Forest probably does not belong in Category:Protected areas of Jefferson County, Colorado. However if the only exception was Canyon Lakes Ranger District, then that might not be a problem, but we also have Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Lake which do not appear to be protected areas but are in the Arapaho National Recreation Area which is a protected area.

One problem when you have articles and categories in another category is that some editors see this and say or, feature 1's category is there so I should add feature 2's category. However they ignore the fact that feature 2's category include several articles, in this example, of people and a few roads and the airport and that big hotel. Clearly those are not protected areas, but they may be part of a national forest.

As far as DMP and JCOS, that all depends on how other articles develop. I can easily see a category for DMP, but likely not for JCOS. There is no hard and fast rule, but small categories that are not part of a well established series are discouraged. And no, small is not defined. But if there are less then 5 articles, it is probably going to be deleted, or at least discussed at a deletion nomination.

As far as dabs and redirects. There is no great answer unless there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And don't ask for that definition which is an ongoing issue. Apex Park is going to be interesting. You only create a dab page when there are more then two pages that are likely to have articles, at least in my opinion. I suspect that Apex Industrial Park will eventually get one. As for the others, I don't know. With Apex Park, the real name is Apex Leisure and Wildlife Park so if you have something that is more commonly called Apex Park, you should feel free the replace the redirect with an article. However if you want to plan ahead, look at the incoming links to other options. If there are a few, then you should consider a dab page. However there are guidelines for dab pages with requirements for existing incoming links. If you do create your article at Apex Park accept the fact that at some point it could be moved if it is not the primary topic. But to me your article would be better then the current redirect which has no inbound links.

Hope this helps. Just remember that there may be no right answers and your view may not be the one that anyone else likes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks tons... I will probably wait until I get a little farther down the road before I tackle this (i.e., maybe get some JCOS pages done), but that will give me time to digest the above advice a little more and get a little better educated. I appreciate the tips and the link to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thanks for the prompt response! --Araucana (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You're the admin that closed the discussion for the above article. However, the discussion has not been properly resolved as per the subject. Please help resolve this problem COMPLETELY this time!--Bumblezellio (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your subject said "No consensus to move", but it looks as if you wrote the move should happen. Given there does not seem to have been a consensus, I assume that is what you meant, but could you please clarify? Thanks. Sposer (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sposer (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)