User talk:Vegaswikian/Archives/2013

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.

Hi Vegaswikian - I noticed that you removed the stub tag from Eighty-second Texas Legislature, but the tag by WikiProject United States on the article's talk page still rates the article as stub-class. Should the article be submitted for re-evaluation on the US WikiProject? Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 23:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change the assessment. There is a major problem in that there are no tools to identify the mismatches between articles and the assessments. In the case here it was over 45,000 characters. While some article at that length can be stubs, most are not. I am not going to assess or submit any of these for reassessment since dealing with the 1,000 likely misclassified articles over 15,000 characters is a major task in and of itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm still currently working to improve this article, as well as some of the other Texas legislature pages, so I may submit it after I finish. Your assessment makes a lot of sense, so I'll leave the tag off the article. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannot see the point in waiting for a consensus on wikipedia, it’s like waiting for hell to freeze over. Disagreement is endemic and decision never seem to be agreed either way. From my point of view, with the rise of internet bucket shops, most people in will choose a hotel by price anyway. The star rating is not so relevant these days. Basically having the AA star rating information to hand will just aid a readers understanding of what quality and facilities a Hotel may have. Surely this is better than having no information, and anyway the element doesn’t have to be filled in. removing it from the template’s syntax is wasting everyone’s time and energy.  stavros1  ♣  16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insult my Intelligence , I am fully aware of WP:NOTTRAVEL I have been editing on Wikipedia for close on ten years now, and frankly I am beginning to become very disillusioned because of the political correctness of many contributors on the encyclopaedia. Adding a small bit of information about a rating doesn’t make an article a Travel Guide.  stavros1  ♣  21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my whoops. But it should just be moved to the correct place rather than being closed, because it was a properly formatted AFD discussion that I somehow (and I don't know how, besides "duh") posted in the wrong place by accident. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure - is a problematic title for a remnant part of a historical building - hardly something that actually could be considered in the usage that the average reader might comprehend... Sure buildings and structures is the more accurate term to use? SatuSuro 00:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

omg - it was lived in the early stage (Barracks indeed), later it was mianly used as offices, but no one in contemporary Perth would ever consider the structure to have been residential.. the fact that it is now simply a small tower at the end of the terrace makes it what it was before you edited it - building and structure was fine... sigh SatuSuro 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

have reverted your edits - the point being that the average punter cannot even conceive of it as anything but a small tower at the end of the main street of perth... the aged members of the population might remember it as being a large structure inthe 1950's and earlier but by that stage was offices - the residential aspect was earlier and not in general conciousness at all. cheers SatuSuro 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are using infrastructure for buildings - that is weird and not what users of english that I associate with would even venture into as a term for individual buildings or structures ... also infrastructure the article is one with issues - to have it as a category for buildings I find quite problematic, I would have thought someone from somewhere would have challenged something like that ... SatuSuro 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

its all weird, if I had the time...however - I have real life to deal with. Thanks for your agf. Im outta here. cheers SatuSuro 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your bold move of material from this article to 15th Street clubhouse has been undone, and the new article converted to a redirect. This is because "15th Street Clubhouse" is not a name that anyone uses, it's description pertinent in the context of the Century Association article. No one will ever look for that building under that name. Futher the Century Association article is not so large that it needed material to be spun off.

As per WP:BRD, please do not restore, rather, discuss the potential move on the Cebtury Association talk page. If you get a consensus there for the article to be split, that's a different matter, but please do not split it again without a consensus to do so.

One other things, buildings are not "infrastructure". Roads, bridges, dams, tunnels - those kinds of things are infrastructure. Pleasae do not change building categories into an infrastructure category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airlines 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. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I closed the CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 8#Category:Hotels completed in the 19th century as you nominated. Would you like to implement this? I suggest that you set up the replacement by-year categories and move one page into them, then list the old ones at WP:CFDS. This will be better than just listing the old ones and using the bot to create the categories, as the templates need setting up manually on each page. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea. What I will probably do is set up any new categories needed and then use the bot to do the bulk moving. Smaller categories I can moved manually. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the century categories can be moved first by the bot without a speedy listing? It would make the manual cleanup a lot easier. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I just came across Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 1#Category:Hotels by year of completion. IMHO that was flawed, but because there have been CfDs pointing in different directions, we should allow 48 hours exposure for the merge/renames. I tried to give enough support in my closing to go ahead using the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a further suggestion on renaming this which you may want to take a look at. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Imperial Palace Auto Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Now-defunct classic car dealer, no particular claim to notability except for unsupported "world's largest"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. It seems that someone has already told it to Pywikipedia developers. I think that it will be fine soon, after updating.--Makecat 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You deleted W. Alan McCollough. He sits on the Board of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and appears to be very notable indeed. I haven't seen the state of the deleted page though. Might you advise?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you hate my category I created? North America is a large place, and not all species are found in all places. Wodenhelm (Talk) 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

...Port Columbus International Airport. The 174.130 IP has been quite active. HkCaGu (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just using that one IP. Protected the article for 3 months based on the history. The IP addresses span too many IPs to even consider a block by IP address. Let me know if you see problems on other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

with edits like this. It's unhelpful to have places sort alphabetically wrongly, and the style guidelines specify that the navbox is to be placed at the end of the article. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind requesting a G7 deletion of this category? It's missing "in", so Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Missouri still needs to be created. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source saying the merger between both airlines has been approved from both carriers http://news.yahoo.com/american-us-air-merger-gets-board-approval-sources-003055203--finance.html but the details of the merger should be announced Thursday. The combined airline will fly under the "American Airlines", be based in Fort Worth, Texas but US Airways's CEO will run the combined company. Should we go ahead and make a new section on the American Airlines page for this or should we wait until they announce it? Snoozlepet (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on this discussion it should be a separate article. The AA article is already rather long and adding this, past a pointer to the new page, does not appear to be a good idea. Given the large number of news reports, feel free to act now. Also add a pointer in the US article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Category:Tourist accommodations and the subcat should be renamed to have "accommodations" as the singular. "Accommodations" is uncommon usage. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a US/UK difference? Tourist is singular so I see the name as following the rules. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worldwide. See Dictionary.com. I think "accommodation" is regarded as plural and singular. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

To my ear it is correct as is. I have no objection if you nominate it for a rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you do it on my behalf? I am blocked from category namespace editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Accomodations" is correct. The word is almost never used in the singular in that context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe it is New Zealand English. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite possible, you would know better than I. But in American English, and British English, the plural usage is normal. Do you have a cite for the singular usage in NZEng? Beyond My Ken (talk)

Thanks for your categorization work. However, this edit, among others I have found, do not make sense to me. The "XXXX establishments in the United States" category is still applicable, regardless of the addition of the category for the year the library was completed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. I notice that you reverted my changes to the referencing style at the Graceland Wedding Chapel article. I'm curious to find out if that's because you don't like change per se, or because you don't like the style I implemented? I think the new style (which isn't really that different) has advantages in that it removes citation syntax from the article text – which in turn makes it easier for the casual editor to update the article. I'm also not sure why you would remove the name="" parameter from the ref syntax as that has advantages in easily allowing reference re-use. At the very least, I hope you will allow me to reintroduce the name parameter as that is within the purview of both old and new styles? Here's hoping we can come to an agreement to move forward with a more modern approach to referencing (that in my experience is gaining acceptance all over WP). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  00:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17#Category:Library_museums as "split manually". Would you like to do do some of that splitting?

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'll work on that. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

113 sub-categories of Category:19th-century fires and Category:20th-century fires, nineteen of which you have created (Category:1904 fires, Category:1917 fires, Category:1922 fires, Category:1929 fires, Category:1942 fires, Category:1961 fires, Category:1963 fires, Category:1973 fires, Category:1974 fires, Category:1977 fires, Category:1978 fires, Category:1979 fires, Category:1984 fires, Category:1991 fires, Category:1992 fires, Category:1995 fires, Category:1996 fires, Category:1997 fires and Category:1998 fires), have been nominated for merging. 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. Waltham, The Duke of 17:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I made some updates to gambling in New Jersey. Could you do a quality assessment? I put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling/Assessment. Thank you very much. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid removing templates as you did here and here; these templates are supposed to be included, as you can see at the "Templates" section of the relevant Manual of Style. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's "required" by this MOS because of the links that it provides in the top row; it's far from being just a navbox. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing my ERROR. Thank God you were watching "Big Brother"! I was intending to praise Olfactory's excellent change but ended up doing something really stupid. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Current national leaders for undeletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6#Category:Current national leaders you may be interested in taking part. Ryan Vesey 23:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Vegaswikian,
I noticed that you are wrongly changing the DEFAULTSORT by several churches. This parameter is used to order the churches names in the related categories. With your changes, you are destroying this orders. Please stop. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand the consequences of your changes. If you change Church of St. Mary Draperis, Istanbul as you did,we will have in the related categories all the church names under "C", which is not very useful :-). As it was before, the name of the church is under "M", which is right. Regarding the English churches that you are also changing, I don't know if a geographical sorting is right or wrong, but if you change it you should do it according to the Saint's name (example: Saint Andrew becomes Andrew, Saint) otherwise in each category you have all Churches under "S.". Is it clear now? Alex2006 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Vegas, thank you for your recent insight at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) re: categories being too broad. Unfortunately, a fort doesn't qualify as infrastructure by definition. Infrastructure is a category that should be reserved for things that provide avenues for trade or distribution of resources. While this Fort played that role, it was secondary to its main purpose. I've gone ahead and put it in "Government structures built in 1756", since that category has another Fort. Perhaps a "Military structures built in 1756" category would be more ideal? Cdtew (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pan Pacific Vancouver is actually part of Canada Place. May I re-create the page as a re-direct to Canada Place? You deleted as copyvio/spam back in 2007.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i noticed you did some dab work on List of rivers of Yorkshire that is on my watchlist, for which i would like to thank you. In the comment box you put help needed for Salton. Could you explain what kind of help you wanted, as i may might be do so.Rimmer1993 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian, could you please help me out by publishing my new article for me, if you find it worthy for inclusion in the encyclopedia? It is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Kirkland. (I know this criminal personally and don't want to be seen publishing it myself). There is a severe backlog there. Thank you.-74.83.181.12 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to elect to not move that into article space. To me it is boarder line notable and I think someone else should look more closely at it. I did do some cleanup on the article. So when someone looks at it, it should have fewer copyedit issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again.= 74.83.181.12 (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I created the template {{Philosophy reference resources}} to provide links to reliable sources for subject matter. Now this Star person believes that somehow this is POV pushing. He or she has interpreted your words as supporting his removing this template. I do not think that is what you meant by it. The links provided are not "annotations" so as to support a claim. They are links to resources for that category. I think this person is very confused, and I would like to avoid problems. Please clarify that what you meant was that a person should not use references in category descriptions. This is not a case of that.Greg Bard (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate to hassle you, but is this firm really notable? Bearian (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Any reason to think it is not notable? A simple Google search gets over 15,000 hits and they are a significant firm in the casino industry. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There are zero sources in the article. The substance of the stub is two sentences. There is no evidence, from what I can see, that they are known anyhwere outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Lots of firms get lots of "ghits" -- Google hits -- because they are good at marketing, not because they are notable, and furthermore, their projects may be notable without the firm being notable. I'll take a look at those ghits, but I must warn you that I'm inclined to nominate it for WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Television towers in India and Category:Television towers in Saudi Arabia proposed move to Japan: huh? Did you mean something else? Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Duensing 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/Jim Duensing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian,

There are articles in the English Wikipedia that aren't complete. For example in Hornos Island is a lot of information that can be added about lighthouses, animals, plants, history, geography, etc, etc, etc. It is a hard work to write the little information that I can add for docens of islands, channels, fjords. I add it, sometimes un-referenced, sometimes in poor English, sometimes simply wrong. But it is a little step to the improvement of the article. Please don't delete the information because it is not complete. You can help more if you add more information. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thans for your prompt response in my talk page.

If there is a Category:Lighthouses in the bottom of the article, that is the information. That means the editor has heard somewhere that in this island is a lighthouse. Because WP:AGF, please don't delete the information. If you have sound rationale that in the island is no lighthouse then delete the category or better you can add {{facts}}, or {{stub}} or {{incomplete}}. In all the other cases don't delete the work of other editors.

Take for example some River from List of rivers of Chile. Most of them are only a sentence like Blanco River is a river in Chile. There is no more. Caudal, Length, afluents, Fish, navegation, etc, nothing is there about the river, only Blanco River is a river in Chile. In this case, according to a strengt interpretation of the WP rules, the article should be deleted. But if you delete it, there will be never a Blanco River-article in WP because no one of the editors has time to write a complete article about this river. Probably there are not so much sources about the Blanco River. All the data must be gathered from many books and editors. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Evening, Vegaswikian:

Thanks for your input on the food companies of Argentina category. I noticed you objected to having them categorized further as manufacturing companies; but remember that food processing is manufacturing, too.

Indeed, where would we be without our Twinkies (on second thought...).

Thanks again,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough; the category does include 'Restaurants in Argentina'. Every other page in the category - bar none - does engage in food processing, however. What do you suggest? Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_19#Category:Leaders_of_counties_in_Iowa

Greetings VW,

We haven't always agreed 100%, but I certainly respect you 100%. Unfortunately I am dealing with an editor for whom I have lost respect. Orlady is stalking my work in the area of state and county government in the U.S. I have been working most recently on a category tree for county government, which had not existed before (I am sure you know how that is - tedious and thankless).

I currently have a made proposal to make the category for persons (i.e officeholders, elected and appointed) consistent. Wouldn't you know it? Orlady is opposing it. I am really at the point with this person where my time is best spent just asking people to ignore him or her. However, I will be glad to answer any of your questions on the matter. Any help appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the consequences of organizing county government entirely under local government, is that the governing board category is winding up organized as an agency of itself. I'm getting a few questions about the county gov't category, and it see="eto me that the only way to resolve them properly is to revisit the idea. The reality is that a county board is an agency of the state government, and the various agencies like the clerk, the sheriff, and the library are agencies of the county government. I would like to organize things properly, but I will need a little support, since we already had the discussion. We know that a county board is an agency of the state government because all state agencies are required to hold open meetings. That is the legal basis of requiring that a county board hold open meetings. Please also see the first sentence of this section of the California State Constitution as supporting my view. Greg Bard (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is really opening up a bag of worms. How does the requirement to hold open meetings make something a state agency? By your logic, every HOA in Nevada is a state agency since they are required to hold open meetings. So much so, that a majority of a board can not be in the same place at the same time. I'm glad I did not have water in my mouth when I read the inclusion of sheriff above. In case you don't know, in Nevada the sheriff is elected and he negotiates with the governments he provides services for for funding of his budget. While an elected county official, he is not a part of the county government that is run by the county commission. Besides this the sheriff, by state law, can not own real property. So in many cases, the county government is actually the landlord for the sheriff. Again looking at Nevada, it you want to argue that county government is a part of the state, then you might as well also include all of the cities. Why? We don't have home rule, so the level of control is pretty much the same for a city or the county. Also your assumption that county agencies are county run is flawed. Out here, many agencies are run by appointed boards that represent all governmental bodies, except the state. The flip side is also true so the board that runs the county hospital is the Clark County Commission members, but they have to be specifically meeting for that purpose, they can not combine the two meetings. So the existing structure has served us well. If there are clear cases where the changes you want to be make have support in law, practice, perception and consensus of the editors, they they can be made selectively. But to try and make these changes across the board seems inappropriate based on the concerns raised. Maybe you want to consider an RFC at WP:WikiProject United States since this affects not only categories but articles. Since categories should be based on article content, shouldn't the articles themselves be rewritten to show that they are state agencies before the categories can be added? I guess after working out this reply, I'm thinking that there are too many questions to roll this out at this change at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This same discussion has already been occurring, in various forms, in bits and pieces all over the place (possibly a bit of venue-shopping). It all started with Gregbard's work on Category:County government in the United States and my revert of what I thought was an odd, but innocent error. (I noticed it because the new category was added to a page I was watching.) That rapidly turned into an incipient war: [1], [2], [3], then a discussion that Gregbard started on my talk page, followed by a change in venue to WikiProject United States, a little "love letter" on my talk page), some WP:CFD discussion that you have participated in ("County leaders in Iowa"), and more discussions on Gregbard's talk page (also see my comment that he deleted), on this page, at User talk:RFD, and at User talk:Alansohn. In fact, all local governments in the United States (probably even HOAs) have only that authority that state government allows them to have, but that does not make counties (nor any other level of local government) into units of the state government (see the sources I cited in the discussion on my talk page). --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This document is directly related to the issue of sheriffs you bring up. It is an opinion of the Nevada Attorney General which makes the claim that in Nevada, a county is an "arm of the state to which there has been committed the control of the county buildings, and that it is not, therefore, subject to the police power of the city" So that is that in Nevada. I can produce similar documents for at least 16 other states.

The fact that HOAs are required to have open meetings doesn't make them state agencies. There is a state law which requires them to specifically. However, there is also a state law that requires "state agencies" to hold open meetings, and it is this law that causes for county boards to hold open meetings. In the case of a county board of commissioner, there is no separate law that names them specifically, because they are already covered, since they are a state agency. Again, I have read Orlady's response below and find nothing helpful in it.

There may be cases where the county government is specifically recognized as not a state agency, but since I have 17 sources that name 17 states where this is specifically not the case, I would say that the burden of proof is on someone else to claim that their state is different. I have seen no such evidence for any state yet. I am certainly open to eventually accounting for all of the variances in county government, however I object to the idea that we are crippled to move forward until the matter is settled for all 50. In fact, we will probably have our issues come into sharp relief because of it.

The issue was brought up for Wisconsin, and I promptly provided the evidence that county gov't there is a state agency, and it was promptly removed by Orlady. So this person is all agenda, and not about learning anything. I am working on an article, however that will be forthcoming later. Greg Bard (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The passage Greg quotes in the reference that he says is about Nevada sheriffs is actually from a court case related to Cook County in Illinois and it is presented as an argument that the court rejected. In context, it says that the court found that a county is subject to the fire regulations of a municipality within the limits of which it erects a county building. The full quotation from the court decision says: "It is urged that the county is an arm of the state to which there has been committed the control of the county buildings, and that it is not, therefore, subject to the police power of the city. While the county is an agency of the state, it is likewise a creature of the state, vested with only the powers conferred upon it by the state. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the county is a part of the state in the exercise of police power." Much mischief and misinformation can be created when primary sources are selectively quoted out of context. That sentence in the Manitowoc County executive's 2003 report about Wisconsin state mandates on counties was also quoted out of context -- my reading of that primary source indicates that he was talking about how the state requires counties to carry out certain state functions. That's hardly a basis for a firm statement that contradicts reliable secondary sources like the National Association of Counties. I have not yet delved into all of the quotations that Gregbard has collected as evidence at User:Gregbard/County by state, but the ones I've looked at are demonstrably either falsely presented, misinterpreted, erroneous, or seriously out of context (User:Orlady/County by state). If there is anyone in this discussion who is "all agenda", it is the person who is waging a one-man crusade against the prevalent wisdom and pre-existing article content on this topic. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your helpful contributions to the quality improvement project I've been working on, over at page, Fuck (film), much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what causes it and how to work around it but I don't know how to fix the problem. It is caused by having the {{coord}} template in the article rather than having the coordinates in the {{infobox nhsc}}. Here is how Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Toronto looked with the coord template at the bottom of the page. Here is how Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Toronto looks with the coordinates in the box and this is the edit. I found another problem as well. The default coordinate type is "city" if you try to use "| coordinates_type = landmark" you get this. I was lucky that I opened Château Frontenac and noticed the lack of the whitespace or I would have been trying to figure that out for a long time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that I have recreated Category:Webby Award winners, for the reasons I've stated in the edit summary. I've also tried to create some parameters in the description. Just wanted to let you know, as you were in involved in its deletion back in 2008, and still may not feel this category is needed, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it can easily fit as a section in Station Casinos, since Ultimate Gaming is a subsidiary of Station. If the section keeps growing that it can be spun out as a separate article someday. Probably also worth a mention in Online poker. Toohool (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. I might need a bit of administrative help with the Beatty article. An unregistered user has inserted POV material about "speed traps" that makes assertions and draws conclusions not supported by reliable sources. I have reverted his changes, but he puts them back in. He has been willing to discuss the issue at User talk:Holger67 and User talk:Finetooth#Beatty but argues that WP:RS should not apply in this case. I don't agree but also don't want to engage in an edit war. If you could take a look when you have the time and suggest a remedy, I'd appreciate it. I'm reluctant to simply ignore Holger67's edits since it took considerable effort to get the article to GA status. Finetooth (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the passages I object to are the first paragraph of the "Government" section, the next-to-last paragraph of the "Economy" section, and the last paragraph of "Infrastructure and culture". Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've mentioned you in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1 due to your recent formatting and copyediting to the article. — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just saw your revert on List of casinos in Oklahoma. Is there a WikiProject or MOS page where the format for the list of casinos has been developed? I think it makes sense to add a column for the tribe that operates the casino where there are lots of tribal casinos, especially in the case of a state like Oklahoma where there is one tribe operating several different casinos under different names. Perhaps we could expand the scope of the column to "Operating entity" or something like that, so it could be used to denote casinos operated by national chains like Caesar's Entertainment or StationCasinos. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough on your splitting of this article into the islands and the lighthouses (I've moved it from lighthouse singular to plural as there are two), but I've had to tidy up a little; I've copied the lead across as the article just jumped straight in. I also added the projects to the talk page from the main article and put in a hatnote for anyone looking for the lighthouse. But two points: first of all, I'm not sure the article was properly attributed when you created it, and should have contained an acknowledgement of the version of the Maidens from which it came, per WP:COPYWITHIN. It probably needs fixing, perhaps with the "copied" template. Second, there are many articles which link to the Maidens article. Presumably, most of them refer to the lighthouses, these being the only real items of interest there. Perhaps some of those links should be corrected to point to the lighthouses articles. As I say, the move is not a problem, but perhaps you could help to tidy up a little afterwards. Cheers. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've closed this discussion. Can you please split the contents, delete the categories, and then let me know when you're done? Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but can you explain why you've changed Las Vegas to Las Vegas Valley? I'm not totally understanding why this change has been made. Also, the change to Otakon you've made do not seem to totally work, as there are editing problems when you took out "Las Vegas", and at least on my monitor resolution the different references tag doesn't work. There were also problems with the references tag when you edited Anime Vegas, but another editor already fixed that. Esw01407 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, that clarity's things. Esw01407 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

hello, i just wanted to bring to your attention that Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) has been adding categories to hundreds of buildings and such that, to me, don't really seem to be correct. since i know that this has been somewhat of a project of yours, i thought you might know something about it. please advise. --emerson7 09:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, like adding "xxxx establishments in Oregon", which when you follow the cat trees upward you will discovery eventually have the same top level cat with the various "Buildings and structures completed in xxxx". But hey, thanks for bringing the issue up with me first so this could be explained. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support in the AN discussion against me. Someone has now threatened to turn it into an RFC. This seems totally the wrong way to do things considering how widely the initial attack has been opposed. I am really, really, really worried about this. I asked the person who posted a link to a potential RFC to remove it. This all seems to be an overblown attack on me. I have admitted I made a mistake with Tane McClure. I never argued that I should have so categorized her, however to try to attack me so much is overly extrme. On Amanda Filipacchi I even reverted my intial edits that got the people to attack me. None of this makes sense. Maybe I am over reaciting, but I hate having this hovering over my head, and I fear even more another two months of attacks that will result if an RFC is started. It seems to me that the whole process has been short circuted. None of these people brought up these issues on my talk page. THey never gave me a chance to repsond. I have tried to respond and fix the specific issues they brought up. If they want to get rid of Category:American women journalists (which I did not create, and which has been renamed at a previous CfD), they are totally welcome to do so. However to try to ban me for adding to it while not removing people from gender neutral sub-cats of Category:American journalists makes no sense at all. This whole thing is very disturbing. I tried to respond to the issues at hand and have only been attacked more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed you were actually the editor who made the previous proposal to upmerge the American female journalists category. I really feel like I am being persecuted. I wish the whole thing would just go away. I reverted the starting edits, so why are people still attacking me?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I follow now. It was the lack of a source. I've corrected that and sourced the facts.

Best, James

Hi,

I suggest the dn link you've added to the "LR Parser" article shouldn't be there. The "Parse table" disambiguation is only there because the term "parse table" is used in different senses for LR parsers and LL parsers. The disam page has links to those articles. So follow the parse table link, and it takes you to the disam page, which has a link to take you straight back to the LR Parse article.

I think the right answer is to remove the "parse table" link and the dn. Perhaps an additional sentence could say "The term parse table is used in a different sense in LL Parsers, but I don't think that is necessary.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

Thank you for the fixes to Talk:Harding County Courthouse and Talk:De Baca County Courthouse. As the person responsible for moving these from a user's sub-page draft to the main encyclopedia, I apologize for the mistake. This should never have happened. I have alerted the user who drafted the articles and I will pay more attention to his drafts until I'm sure he's no longer making this type of mistake. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful contributions to Fuck (film) and Donkey Punch (film). Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think this should be at the title above? All the others at New York, New York (disambiguation) are.--Launchballer 10:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying New York, New York Hotel and Casino is the correct title it should be at?--Launchballer 21:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The title supplied above that is also a redirect. The correct way of writing New York, New York is New York, New York.--Launchballer 21:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the Erie Canal (song) (disambiguation) hatnote you added is a redlink. Did you mean just Erie Canal (song), which is a DAB page? DMacks (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Magnus Manske has recently developed a super-fast category intersection tool + javascript to bring the results into the wiki interface. I tweaked it a wee bit and then put together a demonstration page. If you're interested, could you take a look and let me know your thoughts? This is something we could potentially do before wikidata gets up to speed, especially around EGRS categories. To see it:

• add the following line to your common.js page: importScript('User:Obiwankenobi/intercat.js');
• Then restart your browser, and visit Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. With this in place, we would be able to kill almost all of the gendered/ethnic categories entirely, except at the highest level.

Let me know your thoughts, or you can put them at User_talk:Magnus Manske. best --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts about giving this its own article? Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem. If that is done, then Cape Ann Light Station and the historic district would need to be split from Cape Ann Light. If one light has an article then both should. Cape Ann Light as it is now is a mess. When I got there the NRHP infobox was embeded in the Cape Ann Light box which was not correct since it coverts the entire station which is both lights. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems like a bad idea to have three articles with almost the same content. Let me look at the article some more and maybe we can get it some better content/organization. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you also look at Nixes Mate? This article has the island and the lighthouse (daymark) mixed together. Probably should be rewritten to be about the daymark. I may have more of these as I continue going through the US lighthouses. I was hoping that the US articles would be less of a problem then the rest of the world's, but that is not looking to be the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let everyone who commented in the 2010 RM know that there's another RM/RfC here, in case you'd like to comment again. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw your comments about the link to the name Rita for Laurita Winery. Your point is valid that an external link should not go to a disambiguation (dab). Part of the issue is that the Rita dab page was also serving as an article in that the top of it defined that Rita was a shortened version of two other names. I created a new page, Rita (given name), separate from the Rita dab page, and linked the Laurita Winery article to the Rita given name page. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• [4]

The result aside, that was a definite laugh out loud moment : ) - jc37 02:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)I hope the editor who suggested making it a user category wasn't offended about what I did to her user page :P. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Mrv has been nominated for merging with Template:MRVdiscuss. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads-up: you closed this CfD as "delete", but I just noticed that the cat still exists. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember you telling me something once about the categories for "listification" at WP:CFDWM. Is there some sort of time deadline, where we give users a healthy chance to listify, but if no one does it and it doesn't get done, we just go ahead and delete the category? Or did you once propose such an approach. There are some categories that have been listed there for quite some time. Users are often keen to suggest listification but no one ever wants to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I asked the question. If no one is willing to do the work, deletion of the category should be acceptable. If formally discussed I suspect that allowing 60 days to do the work before deletion would get support. Maybe a requirement to notify those that supported the listify that they can do the work may be all that is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would definitely notify everyone and give them another week or something before I deleted it. 60 days from the close of the discussion also seems reasonable. Maybe we should just do a really old one ad hoc—notify everyone and give it a week—and see how it goes. I think there are some from 2012 in the list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Latin loanwords and Category:Russian loanwords was closed on 3 FEB 2012. Maybe I should give the participants a shout? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if I wanted to formally propose this, where would be the best way to do it do you think? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably as good as any. I thought about Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual but it's probably unlikely to be seen there. I also have this vague memory that Cydebot can do listifications if all we need to do is create a list of the contents of a category. I'll have to look into that as well since that may be an easy solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we decide here should apply to partial merges. If someone with knowledge is not willing to do the work, then we should be able to merge to one category with a note to cleanup. Maybe a new standard template? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pretty much just as difficult to get users to perform selective merges as the listifying. The merge to multiple targets is probably not a huge issue—we just need to get the bot back up and running for those. (I've pinged the user to ask if the bot can still do these.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking to propose something like this for listifying: (1) Closer explicitly indicates in close that it will be placed at WP:CFDWM for listifying. (2) 30 days after close, all users who participated in the close are given a notification that the work is still not done, and that if it is not done within another 30 days it will be deleted. (3) After second 30 days, category may simply be deleted. I have debated whether I should propose a second notification after 60 days, in which they are given another week before deletion. I personally think that it's not necessary, but I suppose it depends on how drastic one thinks this remedy is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

you recently asked for help disambiguating OCP in a paragraph about oral contraceptives. Looking at the OCP disambiguation page, I think the only candidate is oral contraceptive pill. You probably could have guessed that yourself :-) Gronky (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I applaud most of the edits you are making, but I think your edits to the refs at the bottom of the infobox such as this one at Whaleback Light:

| USCG = 1-0200<ref name="cghist">{{cite uscghist|ME}}</ref><ref name="cgll">{{cite uscgll|1|2009|3}}</ref><ref name="rowlett">{{cite rowlett|me2|date=2009-12-07}}</ref>

are a mistake for two reasons:

• It makes it harder to read the markup when the three refs are on one line -- it costs nothing to have them on three separate lines and doesn't change the displayed version, so why not leave it in the easier to read form?
• More important, it displays the three refs on the same line as the USCG number, rather than on the line below. The three refs are intended to apply to the whole infobox, not just the USCG number, so the changed location is incorrect.

. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 02:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The references being used are inline references so they should really apply to the actual parameters they are used to provide backup for. Leaving them hanging is simply wrong. Take the case where there are four of these. Are we to assume that all 4 are being used to source every element in that infobox? It is OK to reuse the reference in the infobox, which makes it clear what is sourced from where. Using a hanging reference does not do that. The other option is that some infoboxes have a references tag that can be used to list a reference that is used for all of the data without being specific. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning would require that every line in every infobox have a separate <ref> tag like this:

Whaleback Light^[1]

Whaleback Lighthouse
Location	Piscataqua River entrance, Kittery, Maine[3][1]
Coordinates	43°03′32″N 70°41′47″W / 43.058816°N 70.69638°W / 43.058816; -70.69638
Tower
Constructed	1830 [2]
Foundation	Stone / timber[2]
Construction	Granite blocks[2]
Automated	1963[2]
Height	15 m (49 ft)
Shape	Conical[2][1]
Markings	Natural[2]
Heritage	National Register of Historic Places listed place
Fog signal	HORN: 2 every 30s[1]
Light
First lit	1872 (current tower)[2]
Focal height	59 feet (18 m)[1]
Lens	Fourth order Fresnel lens, 1855[2]
Range	14 nautical miles (26 km; 16 mi)[1]
Characteristic	Grp Flash (2) White, 10s[1]

That is certainly not the practice anywhere. It's hard to read and hard to maintain. While I agree that having a specific parameter for refs might be a good idea, I don't think it's essential -- the practice of putting the tags at the end of the infobox works. Certainly putting the three tags on the CG Light List number isn't correct -- the number is shown on only two of the three. Finally, although it's a small point in the overall scheme, I can't find any way to ref the coordinates in line. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 12:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your example shows my point that not every reference applies to all of the infobox. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not appear to make an exception for facts in an infobox. It also makes it easier to find the sources when the information is believed to be wrong. It takes a while to figure out the source in cases where the range is listed as miles. In almost every case, the source is for nmi and not mi. If these used an inline reference, then it would be easier to verify each fact. And yes, I have seen inline citations in infoboxes. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think its a maintenance and readability mistake, but I won't revert it if you want to do it. I will, though, revert you if you just move the three cites to the USCG lightlist number, since clearly all three do not belong there. If you believe in it, please do it right, not incorrectly. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 00:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, following this close, which is fair enough, the least you could do is move Category:Teeside Bombers players to Category:Teesside Bombers players as there is certainly consensus to do that if nothing else. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I missed the misspelling in the discussion. Obvious that would normally be a speedie so I will fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the CFDW issue involving hyphens and language templates—I've changed the relevant templates and started listing the subcategories at WP:CFDS. There are a lot to list, but it will probably take some time for the templates to fully reset for all articles (some of these cats have 1000s in them), so we do have some time to list them and I don't think there's a huge hurry. I will do what I can, until I get sick of doing it, then I will give it a break and come back to them later. But I will keep following up and won't abandon the project—ultimately I will help make sure that it gets done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Based on the job queue it could take months for the queue to clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Some users are starting to do a little freak out on my talk page and at the Village pump about these changes because the template change has created a bunch of red-linked categories. So I'm going to try to start the bot to process these. The transition period is troubling users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Cydebot is down! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah—bad timing. I've sent Cyde an email to let him know, and I've asked one of the other bot owners if they can get theirs going, but nothing so far from either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess we could create them by hand, since there's really no content for the bot to transfer in most cases. What a pain. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, tell me about it. I'm been scanning the list and creating those that I think should have a large number of entries. One of these days I will need to learn AWB. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like ArmbrustBot may be working. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ArmbrustBot has been working, but he has to manually queue everything up and it can't create/delete categories—all it can do is transfer content from one to the other. Cyde got back to me and he fixed Cydebot, so it's up and running again—finally! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note the red link for a language category at Volkswagen Worker. Don't know why the counts went to zero, but this is not the first redlink for these I have seen. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits on the Metro van article. It's always nice to have help with an article that I contributed significantly to. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, thanks for checking in at CfD/Category:Open methodologies. However, I think putting these articles all under Category:Open source and hence Category:Free software misses the point. Open access is not about free software, and indeed most items that had been under "Open methodologies" are not. So please go with the original CfD proposal that suggested to keep the category and to rename it to Category:Openness, rather than to fold it into "Free software". Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Open source is not the main article of what had been listed under Category:Open methodologies, so the "follow the name of the main article" approach would not point towards Category:Open source. It is less clear where it would point otherwise, and "Open methodology" was an attempt to capture that. "Openness" is not ideal either but much more appropriate than Open source. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:London Millennium Funicular#Survey -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you recategorizing some lighthouses as "houses"? Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but for instance you took Hooper Strait Light out of Category:Lighthouses in Maryland. That will never do. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the part where you replaced the "lighthouses in" category with the "houses in" category. I'd have to think about categorizing those where the tower is integral to the keepers' dwelling as "houses", but I cannot see removing the "lighthouse" category. Mangoe (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that something unintentional happened here.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to see how such reformatting and improper Bowlderdizing of my talk page could be unintentional, even for somebody who has difficulty with the set of sixth intervals. Don't reformat others' talk page comments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me more like he was looking back in history and replied from there, Kiefer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&diff=563005771&oldid=562963684 —Kww(talk) 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied to a comment you made about me simply pointing out that the you could fix the disambiguation. I have no idea how any messing up of your talk page is possible by adding a simple reply! Honestly I have no idea about the problem you are accusing me of. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Odd indeed. Vegaswikian has made a number of edits after Kww's post, yet doesn't reply here. Is there some bug hiding the new messages alert from you, Vw?

@Kiefer, it's a poor assumption that Vw's removal of text on your page was deliberate, especially since that would mean their edit summary was downright deceptive. On ANI, people often remove great swathes of text through merely saving their own post, or rather, the "ANI bug" removes it through no fault of theirs. Probably something to do with the great frequency of editing at ANI. Similar conditions sometimes prevail on your talk page, so it's not necessary to assume bad faith and practise your sneering. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC).

I did not remove any text! I added a reply, it is really that simple. I will note that when I did the edit, there were no section edit links. So I assumed they were turned off. That forced me to edit the entire page to reply. Based on these comments, it looks like a major system barf, or two occurred. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it was a major system barf: you were looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz&oldid=562963684 . Notice how there are no section edit tags available, because section editing is only available when viewing the current version. If you then went to the top, hit edit, entered your reply, and saved, you would get exactly what happened. The real question is why you didn't fix it when I pointed it out to you.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Because when I looked at it I saw that the change I made was done correctly. I did not realize at first what had happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering why you closed the discussion on Category:1901 establishments in Malaya etc, but did not close the earlier discussion on Category:1889 establishments in Malaya and Category:1893 establishments in Malaysia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agree with you and have done so in the past, but I have been told before not to do that based on the G7 criteria which states "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I sense some restlessness among all sorts of editors regarding these discussions, some of which have been open for quite some time now. (I know you've recently closed some of them.) If you're thinking about opening an RFC on the matter, it might be a good idea to have most of these discussions closed first. Otherwise, it's going to be a little bit difficult for users to discuss the issues in a central location (the RFC). I haven't examined all the discussions in detail but there may be consensus for some and others maybe not. I'm not saying that you should be the one to close the open discussions—but I just wanted to let you know that if you're worried about blowback in closing these discussions, it won't be emerging from me, regardless of how they are closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I will be opening the RFC. I'm not sure that many of the open discussions can be closed as other then no consensus. One reason for delaying the RFC is how to address those open discussions. One thought I had was to include a request for an uninvolved admin to close the batch until the RFC is resolved. The other was that the RFC, if there is a consensus, can be used for closing any discussions that are open. Clearly the way forward is not going to be easy. However, if we can get a broader consensus for the future, then we will have made progress. I have only been closing ones with a clear consensus. They seems to be a clear minority. I have not done sufficient digging to see why some have a consensus and others don't. That could make an interesting article for the signpost (or whatever the wiki newsletter is called). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you think that the RFC should be ongoing while the CFDs are still in progress? That's the opposite of what I thought; I thought that closing them and directing all users to the RFC in the close would help direct everyone to the discussion and help focus the discussions in one place. If the RFC establishes a consensus, I thought that the CFDs that are closed as "no consensus" could always be re-nominated based on the RFC results. But whatever you think is the best way to approach this. But any possibility of making it all less of a clusterf––– than it already is would be helpful, I think. As an involved party, my opinion is, of course, just that, and I'm not going to be in the business of taking any admin to task for how things proceed or develop. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a best way! No matter what, given my plans to start the RFC, I should not be involved in the closes if that that's the direction the RFC takes. I suppose we could post a request on WP:AN to see is someone there thinks that closing the open discussions would be the best approach. If we wait, we don't know how many more nominations could come out of the woodwork. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what others think. I'm optimistic that there will be a consensus of some sort. I think on balance, those on the one side care about the issue a lot more than those on the other sides, so really it's probably just a matter of time ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You noted on a recent CfD that you opened an RfC .. could we have a linky please? Maybe it should be noted on/linked from all still open discussions of this kind; or those discussions could be 'suspended', or closed as you suggest above (though unknowing people may still CfD categories of this kind, what to do with those then .. ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The RFC is here. I linked it in one discussion. Not sure that linking in every discussion is appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any unintentional damage to the page. Thank you for restoring it.

I don't consider myself a vandal, just someone frustrated with the editing system. I work with a number of content management systems and find the new one to be quite challenging. I'll make another attempt and try to not to break the china.

Hugoott (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Hugoott

I don't know why you are so deadest on removing the Rivers of the Appalachian Trail category. Hate to burst your bubble, (while the article's is by no means complete), the watersheds of the following Delaware tributaries drain areas of the trail, are seen from the trail, or the trail pass through or right by them in New Jersey: (1) Flat Brook (Big Flat brook), (Little Flat Brook), Dunnfield Creek, Shawpocusssing Creek (Stony Brook), Paulins Kill (via its tributary Yards Creek and Jacksonburg Creek) and in Pennsylvania: Cherry Creek, Caledonia Creek. And that the trail crosses the Delaware at the Water Gap, where Cherry, Caledonia Dunnfield, Shawpocussing creeks and the Paulins Kill all enter the Delaware. Please stop removing this category.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• And probably several more as you go down Blue Mountain in Pennsylvania.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And in no way does any of that make the trail defining for the list. This is a list and not an article about individual rivers. Also, why are you accusing me of removing Category:Rivers on the Appalachian Trail‎? I have done nothing of the sort. I'm just trying to remove an inappropriate list article from a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. But can the maxarchivesize be a bit lesser? 200k is huge for my internet speed!--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rolled back here You didn't need to remove {{albums category}}, which was automatically adding two categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, VegasWikian,

I've been doing a little tweaking here and there on Wikipedia over the past few months and decided that the one thing that bothered me the most and would most benefit from my efforts is working on organizing categories and recategorizing articles that have been placed in not-very-suitable categories. This has led to me posting several proposals for category merging or deletion and, frankly, checking back on them over the next few days, I was disappointed not to see more of a debate surrounding the proposals.

I thought they would never be acted upon but I went back a week and found that you worked to resolve some of the proposals (not just mine but older proposals). While my arguments might not always win people over, I appreciate my proposals being "heard" and some decision being made rather than leaving proposals unresolved, forever. It makes me feel like maybe this is an effort worth spending time on. So, thank you for taking action! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This CFD you closed presents a problem; an upmerge was indicated, but one of the issues was that the category members were not all Freemasons in the first place. However, since people get mad when one empties a cat and then CFDs it, I left it as-is to illustrate the problem (without considering upmerge). Is there some way to figure out what used to be in the cat and remove incorrect entries as needed? MSJapan (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note (TP stalker here): While it is certainly discouraged to empty a category before discussion, I don't think there is anything wrong with removing entries which clearly don't belong. If there is some dispute as to the scope of the category, you should keep them in, but if something is unambiguously just not belonging, I don't think there's an issue with removing it before, or during, a CFD discussion. However, if your change is reverted, best to let it be. The exception would be, if removing things you don't think belong would pare the category down to nothing or almost nothing. I don't have anything to offer on the particular freemasons issue however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: this will show you recent changes in the category: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Freemasons (but it doesn't show you things that have been REMOVED from a category - it just shows you recent changes for things which are IN that cat. Not sure if that helps.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i hope you like the recent development of many Nevada NRHP articles by User:TheCatalyst31 and me, and I appreciate your contributions in many of the articles in play. The navigation templates for each county are quite impressive, i like them, by the way, and I think they're your work. And I think you've contributed a good number of photos, which make the article development ps. a lot more interesting immediately. In Nye county, where there are few photos, the article development may serve future photographers to be more informed about what exactly should be photographed, but it is less fun working on the new articles. Anyhow, I hope you don't mind my reverting your deletion of a redlink See also, though, in the Arthur Raycraft House article, which i did because it was a link to a soon-to-be-mainspace article that is currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raycraft Ranch. You could better fix the temporary situation by moving it to mainspace.... :) But, what i visit here to ask about, is about the Raycraft Ranch which is described as being north of Carson City, at least when it was NRHP-listed. Carson City borders have changed over time, but maybe not since then. The Raycraft Ranch is however included in National Register of Historic Places listings in Carson City, Nevada, while I think it maybe should be moved to National Register of Historic Places listings in Washoe County, Nevada. Do you think it may be in Washoe County? Again, thanks for your recent help and past work in this area. cheers, --doncram 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit on Adam Lambert's article where you changed Las Vegas to Paradise. My reason was because the citation says Las Vegas and does not mention Paradise-changing this only confuses reader. Your reason for the change was Dab link and I did check the MGM wiki which mentioned Paradise, however it does not have a reliable citation and the article has been cited for this fact. So I further checked the MGM website and found no mention of Paradise at all. Also all the ads and commercials for this event have also said in Las Vegas. If for some reason you still feel it should be Paradise, please post in Adam's Talk so other users can weigh in on this. Thanks. Omgoodnessme (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually KJUL is licensed to Moapa, Mesquite, Summerlin, and Las Vegas. KOAS is the only one I know of in the city who doesn't mention Las Vegas in its legal ID at the top of the hour. Unless that has changed at KJUL (as nobody can ever hear that station in town anyways), then I feel I'm still right. jbl1975 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2013 (PDT)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Snooker venues. 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. Betty Logan (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, I removed Wild Wild West Casino from the template as a distinct casino but I didn't add it to the defunct section because it is still open – albeit as just a slot room connected to Bally's Atlantic City. It is operated as part of Bally's; it doesn't have its own staff, table games, or a hotel. I thought of putting it in parenthesis after Bally's Atlantic City, but ultimately didn't because it seemed to muddy up the template and I don't think it is notable for the reasons discussed on the talk page. In any event, I wanted to clarify it's not closed and the template should be fixed one way or the other. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is not marketed and not on their website, but it's still on the building so I see what you mean. Accurizer (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We now have state lists for a bunch of states (including MA, which is the one that prompted this message). I'm not sure how we fit them with the master US list, especially since discrepancies are developing. I can go ahead and update the main list to match List of lighthouses in Massachusetts but that's not likely to be the only one where there's a problem; also, it seems kind of dumb to me to have "main article" links in every state. Any ideas? Mangoe (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try and find time within the next couple of weeks. Kingjeff (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Team handball#Requested move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You have only toughed the surface in reverting the destructive edits being made by user:Tinton5. Many hundreds of his recent category edits need to be reverted to keep the category system intact. Tinton5 is making up and following his own theory of categories with no reference to the category rules. Hmains (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You have only toughed the surface in reverting the destructive edits being made by user:Tinton5. Many hundreds of his recent category edits need to be reverted to keep the category system intact. Tinton5 is making up and following his own theory of categories with no reference to the category rules. Hmains (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tinton5 and another user are operating on a theory that articles with Eponymous parent categories cannot ever both be in parent category. This creates all kinds of crude category juggling. Category rules allow for this as a choice.

Another theory is that Eponymous categories are not the same as an articles and therefore cannot go into a super-category where you might expect them to be found. See Category:Bergen County, New Jersey for an example of this mess. By this theory, all the categories for cities, boroughs, towns, unincorporated areas in Bergen County must be directly in Category:Bergen County, New Jersey as they are not allowed to be placed in categories such as Category:Cities in Bergen County, New Jersey as 'category for a city' is 'not a city'. So instead of just having county-wide subcats within Bergen county, we have all this other stuff to impede readers.

They are also operating on the theory that since they have a Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, Pennsylvania, NY, etc., the members of that project (or the dominant member) have sole and not-to-be questioned authority over what they will do with the categories they have included in their project. They are not a bit concerned whether the category structure they set up matches anything else in the United States. They alone will decide whether articles and their eponymous categories will go into county-level or state level categories (never both). I will continue changes/reverts, but you/I will soon see the war that will erupt, with your/our interference with their territory. As a non-admin, I will receive the crude threats and abuse. Hmains (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Category:American child actresses discussion that you closed, I'm not sure what happens next. Do I take action? Does someone else? Neither of my proposals was accepted and yet I get the impression that something is supposed to happen now that the discussion is closed. Newjerseyliz (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You said there, "After the manual work is done, someone probably needs to look at whatever was not nominated and see if anything else should be discussed for a change". Are you suggesting that the county categories with more than 2 stations also be CfDed? pbp 20:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, based on the RM discussion and current policies. As discussed in the RM WP:AT says both that an article title should be concise and that it should be recognizable to readers. Based on the limited discussion at the RM it would appear that these two are in conflict in this case and I thought that the consensus amongst the editors was just towards concise being the more important one here. As has been pointed out at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation there is currently no policy directly relevant to this situation those arguments were all I had to go on. However, as I said when closing, I also accept that the consensus was very weak so specifically said that I think more discussion of that aspect of the title would be reasonable. On a personal note I think we probably do need a policy or guideline that says when disambiguating with a place name the same form should be used as the place name's article but, as currently no such policy or guideline exists, a decision to move it to New Britain, Connecticut would have been a super vote. Dpmuk (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Misconduct in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has been a blight for some time. I assume it started as axe-grinding in the main article and was split out when it overwhelmed the LVPD content. I took a hatchet to the obvious BLP violations and left my thoughts on the talkpage, but it's still a mess. I don't know if there are any appropriate articles on similar subjects to use as models. While I don't like using AfD for articles that are just bad, this might be an occasion for doing so. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you are probably right. If you look in Category:Police misconduct in the United States this appears to be the only department singled out. I'm sure that many other departments have bigger issues, Chicago being one. AfD does seems like a reasonable approach. The only other option I see would be the rename to a list of incidents, dropping the misconduct focus and adding in all of the incidents that went nowhere. That would give a balanced view but would be impossible to maintain. And again it would still be an article without peers on the encyclopedia. So if we can't have a title without NPOV issues, should we have an article? Note that I also changed the heading here since LVPD and LVMPD are two different organizations and LVPD is also used by TV shows. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering I took out a bunch of incidents on BLP grounds (they involved non-criminal misconduct, happened off-duty, or could not be verified as resulting in convictions), I think it would be hard to broaden it. If it's unique, I think it should go. Perhaps part of the rationale would be an absence of an available NPOV title. And yes, LVMPD. As I noted on the talkpage, the NYPD, LAPD, CPD and practically any other major police force anywhere in the world could have a similar laundry list: it goes with the territory. By the way, take a look at the New Orleans Police Department (if any police department warrants a misconduct section, it's the NOPD). I just did: my eyes hurt. It's been that way since 2010. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have tagged the wrong page (Wiki's not owned by any project!) Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You closed this discussion today, but I feel it needs more time, since there has hardly been a discussion yet (only one reply to the contents besides procedural discussion). As you can read in the discussion, it maybe could have been placed elsewhere (as pointed out by User:Cgingold). I would like to prolong the discussion, but I am unsure from a procedural point of view how it could be achieved... Could it be reopened or are there other options you may have any advice on? LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian, I left you a message HERE. Cheers, Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know you, for a lack of a kinder phrase, messed up the Template: Infobox Hotel. I don't know where you created the error, so please corrected it as soon as you can. Thank you. --108.82.82.40 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting it. --Simfan34 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not be totally fixed, but it seems to be working. This is related to the request to add a bed icon. The image provided may not be the best so if there is a better one... Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, Would you be kind enough to relist this CFD for further discussion, instead of closing "No Concensus"? I should have posted a request to that effect, sorry for the bother. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and relist it myself. Just didn't want to step on your toes. :) Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. If you like, I can change the wording in your close to indicate that it was relisted. Cgingold (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, VW - Uh-oh. I just discovered your close on the other CFD I had listed further down the same page as the one for Category:Haskalah. I sure hope there's some way for the same bot that carried out the merge to Category:Therapy to go thru all of those items and remove them from that category. As I noted in my comments, I had already looked thru ALL of them (unlike the other two commenters) -- and none of them were in need of additional categories -- nor was it in any way appropriate to merge them into Category:Therapy. Which is why I wrote that the best thing to do was to simply delete the category. What is the best (i.e. least time-consuming) way to proceed at this point, now that the entire contents of Category:Therapeutics have been mixed in with the contents of Category:Therapy? Cgingold (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You closed these as "no consensus", but for both discussions, Geo Swan's "keep" votes said "couldn't an article be written?" That's a non sequitur keep vote, like saying "keep, because oranges are cool", as categories have nothing to do with whether or not an article can (or cannot) be written about them. In the Germany one, Hmains' objection was that he thought we were singling out Germany, not that the cat was valid. For that reason, I think a consensus to delete was built in both cases. Could you re-review those closures again? MSJapan (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, then which talk page, and who should be involved? MSJapan (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Never heard from the law enforcement WP, so this never really went anyplace. Any other ideas? MSJapan (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i've noticed your "normal sort" edits like this one on a number of Nevada NRHP articles. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, but I think it a bit better to use the defaultsort so that an article like that shows up in categories in the G's at "Garvey, Luella, House", rather than in the L's. The wider consensus of Wikiproject NRHP is for use of the defaultsort that way, as reflected in the NRHP list-articles too. While in the Nevada nav templates and in the Nevada articles, you're going the other way, treating house names like ship names. For ship names, say this was the Luella Garvey (a ship), I agree that it would go under L, but house names seem a lot more fluid, are not written on the house itself. Can I ask, is this a change you make in just Nevada articles? If it is wider, then maybe some policy discussion is needed, i wonder. It was previously suggested by an AFC editor that the policy on this oughta be put into wp:NRHPMOS or somewhere, but I don't want to bring it up, even, if it done differently just in one state, by your personal preference.

Thanks for all your follow-on edits to new Nevada NRHP articles that I have created in recent months, I do appreciate your improvements. By the way, i think NV is all "articled" now. Sincerely, --doncram 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your reply at my Talk page, including "Remember that most building articles do not sort on anything except the actual building name. The biggest exception I have noticed is religious buildings in the UK where they mostly sort based on city/town. So when you put these different choices these into a broader category, you get a random mess. As I said, if the project wants to sort within the project categories that way, they are free to do so, but then it would be a piped sort and not something applied to all categories" shows that you know about stuff that I don't. I am not at all aware of different sorts in the UK.

But still, about house names, what I mean about them being fluid is that people refer to the house as being a shortened last-name only, as "Garvey House", say, sometimes documented explicitly in the article. And there are other alternate names, often. Using the most important element, the Lastname, seems better to me. I don't see how that makes a category a random mess. In the U.S., I am not aware of building articles sorting differently; most building articles with names of format Firstname Lastname Building in the U.S. are NRHP-listed places with the default sort in place. I'd rather watch and reply here, rather than splitting the discussion. --doncram 20:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

But commercial buildings do not follow this nor does any other building type. The exception that you appear to be using is how we sort people and not one for buildings. Personally I use the names of the building and if I'm looking in a category, I should not be required to know that the building is an NRHP one and it uses a different sort or a British one that sorts by the city which I have no idea what it is. The building name is the building name. It is not a person, even if it includes the persons name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It seems that the infobox generator that User:Elkman created for the National Register wikiproject also generates a "last name first" defaultsort for houses that include a person's name. Elkman mentioned this feature in passing on the Wikiproject talkpage (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 21#Architect: Unknown and Architecture: No Style Listed), but it doesn't ever seem to have been discussed otherwise. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that this may be the tool being used given the problems. It is still buggy in other ways that do not follow the MOS, like:

It inserts a blank line before the reflist template

It inserts two blank lines before any templates

It only inserts one blank line before the stub template

I know of nothing in the category sorting guidelines that supports this. WP:SORTKEY clearly makes note that we sort people articles differently, nothing else. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that members of the NRHP wikiproject unilaterally (but with good intentions) created an exception for topics of that project's interest. The wikiproject maintains its own style guide, which may mean that wikiproject "regulars" are relatively unaware of Wikipedia-wide standards like WP:MOS and WP:Categorization. A discussion is needed, either at WT:Categorization or WT:NRHP, to determine whether the community wants to make this an exception to WP:SORTKEY (and, if so, whether the exception should be limited to certain categories) or whether the NRHP wikiproject should conform to the same standard as the rest of the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who use Microsoft Windows. 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. Technical 13 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Vegaswikian: Could you please explain why this deleted category was also salted?--v/r - TP 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Normal process is to empty the category first. In this case, the template owner revered the changes to the template that would allow the category to empty on its own. So this was a WP:IAR compromise in my mind to having the deletion follow the process and yet avoid likely problems with recreation while the category has content. Many editors think every red category needs to be created so not salting would likely lead to innocent users creating a category deleted at CfD. I have no objection if the deletion review decides to keep the category deleted and unsalt as you have suggested. But if that is the outcome, the template also needs to be updated to not populate the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really agree but I can see how that's reasonable so fair enough. I'm still going to ask that it's unsalted in the deletion review, though.--v/r - TP 19:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, I regret that we've not had the opportunity to meet under less contentious terms. I think that you will find that I am a quite reasonable guy that works very hard at improving the encyclopedia on a more technical level (I've not created a single article that wasn't later turned into a redirect, but have created multiple templates and WP: shortcuts and have over 10K total edits). All of that being said (and before you give me a "With all due respect, ..." reply), I'm confused as to why, if the CfD deletion is overturned and the category is unsalted, that it shouldn't be populated (whether by a template or otherwise)? Thanks! Technical 13 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about since I have not said that. Lets, wait for the DR to decide the out come. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Read up a couple of indents, your response to TParis was, "I have no objection if the deletion review decides to keep the category deleted and unsalt as you have suggested. But if that is the outcome, the template also needs to be updated to not populate the category." (underlined and bold for emphasis of my confusion). Thanks Technical 13 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But that would be if if the decision is endorsed. Your question is if it is overturned. Like I said, let the DR run it's course and decide what to do. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! About this edit the Downtown patrol division of HPD is based in that building so it does function as a police station.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I checked the addresses listed at the http://www.houstontx.gov/police/contact/images/hpd_beat_map.pdf map, and it states the Downtown division is actually based in a different building. I'll check to see if there are any station functions at 1200 Travis. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vegaswikian,

I noticed that you're an administrator and you seem to be pretty active in the field of categories. I'm not a category expert at all so I wanted to ask your viewpoint about something. Do you think it would be at least arguably appropriate to nominate this category (and I guess its subcategories, which go as far down as Category:People from Oklahoma executed by lethal injection, too) for deletion as a trivial intersection under WP:OC#TRIVIAL? The fact of which state these people are "from" (meaning "born", it appears from articles I've looked at) doesn't seem super relevant to the fact that makes them notable (their crime), so that's why I feel like that link applies and the category should be deleted. Also, to me, it seems not that different than this discussion but I'm no expert and obviously that was a long time ago! I noticed there's a backlog so I didn't want to go to CFD if it's a plainly silly argument. I'm not planning on doing anything with this for a while; I want to have a think about "criminal" categories more generally, and also the thing that led me to this is a bit of a hot potato at the moment so I feel it's best to proceed with caution. But I thought you might have an insight, perhaps. Regards, AgnosticAphid talk 21:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the threshhold for category notability is pretty low. These are not really "intersections" but just sorting so that the parent category isn't too large. (And certainly you could easily find many books about criminality in each state, showing the notability of the intersection in any case). The articles are about presumably notable people. Provideing a way to sort and find those articles is always an improvement, unless there are policy violations IMO.(also, generally categories can be applied to articles even if the category is not a reason for the notability. That it is true, and verifiable is generally enough) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That totally makes sense, it's just that wouldn't the more appropriate category be people who committed their crimes in whatever state, as opposed to people born in whatever state, since that's way more related to the notability? AgnosticAphid talk 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: for instance, the Indiana categories seem way more relevant to me than the NY one in this article. AgnosticAphid talk 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I had missed that portion of your question in my haste. I see the point, but that same argument would be true for EVERY "by state" category, which would be a MAJOR change. It my experience "by state" and "from X" categories tend to be braodly construed, with the same person being "from" many place (where born, lived for significant time, or achieved notability in). Changing the standards for just one sub-type of category seems like a bad idea. If you wanted to try and set standards for all such, you could go that route, but I think success would be unlikesly as it would be thousands and thousands of categories and articles affected. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems the issue here perhaps is partially because this guidance about overcategorization is super contradictory (I think?): In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state). However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. For example, Category:American writers by state. Food for thought, I guess. Perhaps another consideration is the fact that the category I brought up is hardly populated. AgnosticAphid talk 22:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I hadn't noticed the criminals by state categories until seeing this discussion. It appears to me that the category structure is consistent with related categories, but it is not well populated. These categories presumably deserve to be populated with pages currently found in other category structures, such as the other subcategories of Category:American criminals; prisoner and detainee categories such as Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United States by jurisdiction, Category:American people who died in prison custody, Category:American prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, Category:Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by United States jurisdictions; and "conviction" categories such as Category:American people convicted of murder and Category:People convicted of murder by United States jurisdictions. --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, because like I said I'm no category expert, are you saying that it'd be best to put them in the "criminals by state" category instead of those other categories? Because I actually like those other categories a lot more because they are mostly related to the state these people committed their crimes in, something related to their notability, rather than the "criminals by state" category which is about where the people were born. This article illustrates that problem. Or are you saying that we should populate the "criminals from" category with people who are also in categories about the state they were executed by or whatever? That kind of seems like category overload. I dunno. AgnosticAphid talk 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

By-state would be additional categorization, not a substitute for other categories. Before I commented above, I had looked at Byron Looper, which article is slotted into a diverse variety of categories related to his crime, his conviction, his imprisonment, and his death in prison. It seems to me that categories like Category:People convicted of murder by Tennessee could have companion categories like Category:Murderers from Tennessee, which should be slotted into Category:Criminals from Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You closed this CfD for Category:Women's football leagues in Norway as no consensus, and I just curious what you mean with your closing comment - are you saying that I should nominate all the categories in Category:Women's association football leagues in Europe in a multi-nomination would be the best way forward? Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me if a general discussion or a broader nomination is the best way forward. Possibly a discussion on a sports group talk page, might be useful. If you wanted to nominate the entire tree, that would be an option. However from the discussion, it is impossible to determine where consensus might be given the limited discussion on the category you nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Vegaswikian. Let's get busy on that Music of Nevada page. It needs some major cleanup and possibly even better formatting. What do you say? Sal Calypso (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian,

I noticed you are active in categories and since that is an area I'd like to do more work in, I hope you can help me understand it better, specifically, how consensus is determined when you close CfD. I've proposed a few CfD that seemed obvious to me but failed and I've assigned some categories to other categories which were soon questioned in a CfD (and that is happening to me currently). I've read and reread everything on the Wikipedia policy pages about categories and categorization but it seems to me that consensus changes, too (Ex- the anger over women novelist but now it is standard to have male actor/actresses categories).

So, I know you don't do a strict vote counting so what is the process of deciding in these CfD cases, especially when there is usually only a half dozen Editors make their opinions known. Partially, I ask because I'm curious but I'd also like to be more effective in the WP work that I do.

Thanks, Vegaswikian, for any insight you can provide! Feel free to answer on my Talk Page if you'd prefer. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vegaswikian,
I was double-checking categories nominated for deletion, renames and mergers and finding in only a few cases were the category creators being notified of the discussion at CfD. Is this an optional step? I found this step being skipped both by newbies and regulars. It's always done at AfD so I'm surprised not to see it a mandatory part of the process at CfD. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions and don't assume I'm an idiot. Before you revert something, ask. I know more about sorting than anyone else around here, which probably means I've made more mistakes than anybody. If you have a question or are confused about something, ask away, just don't assume it is wrong and the editor is an idiot.

Dashes come before letters in sort order. em-dashes and en-dashes come after letters. Help:Alphabetical order has a brief view to show why this is and also why accented letters are not to be used.

The paragraph you removed comes directly from WP:NAMESORT, specifically WP:MCSTJR.

As is repeated several times in SORTKEY, " such systems must be used consistently". Same basic rules should be used in SORTKEY as in NAMESORT. They both use the same mediawiki sort software and both use categories. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

...yet I am not allowed to respond to that defamation in the same forum. That is fundamentally u just. I assume the closer is an administrator, and defaming Wikipedia editors in the course of closing CFD discussions and not allowing the defamed party to respond is an abuse of administrative power. Either I should be allowed to rebut the defamation or the admin's defamatory remarks should be removed. Any interest in fairness or is process more important? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Autopistas in Mexico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Keizers (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still very confused by your initial response to my question. I have no clue what you mean by no.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you really come up with that category? It's ridiculous! Most medieaval buildings, including Bristol Cathedral have no end date. Perhaps it was consecrated or opened for services at that time, but it certainly wasn't "finished". Even if the structure was whole, the detailing may have gone on for years. While a date of foundation can be known for certain, a date at which the work was complete cannot be; not unless it is known that the worked ceased completely because of a dated event, war, plague, change of government or some such. Please dis-invent the category and don't create others like it.

Moreover, chasing around smaller and smaller categories does not help any search process. In the 1100s, a decade is close enough.

Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you undid the redlink I created; here's another version of it; that region is the Cassiar Country, often just called "the Cassiar" and there's a Cassiar Land District, and though that mountain happens to in the Cassiar Mountains I don't think "Mountains" is a necessary part of the dab, same as with leaving "Country" off of Pyramid Mountain (Wells Gray-Clearwater) which Volcanoguy had created as Pyramid Mountain (volcano). I have had a stroke recently and do not wish to become heavily involved again in Wikipedia, it was one of the contributing factors to my stroke and my current financial and physical distress (too much dealing with and trying to correct the obstinate and the inane). A series of redlinks for the other BC Pyramid Mountains should be created, another would be Pyramid Mountain (Lillooet Ranges) or Pyramid Mountain (Fraser Canyon) maybe (Fraser Canyon being the region, though the mountain doesn't flank the canyon proper; that's the one in BC Names south of Kwoiek Creek; I didn't have the energy to look up the other four. A simple stub is enough, using the BC Names ref and whatever's in bivouac.com, would have taken not much more energy than reverting my redlink and adding the dn template. But it's energy I don't have right now, and as per my edit comment, I really should remember to NOT login and NOT look at my watchlist so I don't get sucked back into the wiki-vortex. When you see something like that, rather than just dropping a template and going to drop another, why not actually start an article and contribute to content, and not to maintenance issues?Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, The winery infobox used in Willow Creek Winery automatically links words in the products sold section. There's was a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_150#How_to_fix_a_disambiguation_in_an_infobox.3F, and it was determined that to fix this problem would require changing the infobox template, thus affecting hundreds of articles. Based on that, I chose to leave the disambiguations. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can fix the infobox so that it doesn't automatically link all the words, go for it. Template:Infobox winery DavidinNJ (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the template. DavidinNJ (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point about "Las Vegas" being used very generally; as someone who has lived in both "Pittsburgh" (actually Allison Park, Pennsylvania) and "Los Angeles" (actually Orange, California), I can certainly sympathize. However, if there is no evidence that a given person or group is from a differently named area (Henderson, Enterprise, etc) and their official pages list their home as Las Vegas, it makes little sense not to take them at their word. Unless you can provide definitive evidence that someone is NOT from Las Vegas proper, and they report that they are, please do not change links to state they are from the "Las Vegas Valley". - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not change hometowns for sportspeople like Kyle Busch to "Las Vegas Valley" when they state they are from Las Vegas the city and all sources state that they are from Las Vegas the city. When all sources state Las Vegas the city changing to "Las Vegas Valley" is WP:SYNTH if not outright WP:OR. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the sources say Las Vegas. If you actually do the digging you will see that the sources do not say the city. They actually use anything with a Las Vegas as the mailing address. So for example, how many people are from Paradise which has a significant population? The answer is close to zero since they are all said to be from Las Vegas. So assuming that any source actually specifically means the city is the original research. Reliable sources are fine, as long as you understand what their statements mean. This is the a problem with which article we have in the main name space. This is further compounded by some sources also calling the entire valley the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I stumbled over this old CFD which you closed as "delete" but it doesn't appear that the categories got deleted. It doesn't look like the close was challenged that I can see. Can the categories still be deleted at this point or does there need to be a new CFD? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. —sroc 💬 08:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, although it was not me who originally put it there I'm not quite convinced that your removal of category:East Midlands Airport is correct for M1 Motorway. Whilst I completely agree that we don't categorise roads by place served, this particular categorisation is not to do with the EMA being a destination but rather a historical event. The M1's history is firmly interwoven with that of the adjacent airport by the Kegworth air disaster (referenced in the article under Incidents) which received a similarly large volume of UK news coverage to the internationally known Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 a few weeks earlier. I'd go as far as to suggest that for any British person old enough to remember it that if asked for a fact about the East Midlands Airport, the answer would be "that was where that airliner came down on the M1"; the end of the runway is so close to the carriageway that the landing lights are on highway property.

On that basis, I'm intending to revert, but asking for your comments before doing so. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Alltel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You start playing with western australian articles, it is a bit disturbing to see some of your edits. Koolyanobbing is a stopping place on the railway and I am about to reinstate your edit. If you want an explanation about the revert, in length, you can have it later, however, unless you can prove local knowledge, please understand some of your edits are open to question. satusuro 01:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• For instance your edit summary and action do not correspond at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shay_Gap,_Western_Australia&oldid=582292665. Changing measurement coding is one thing, but you didnt touch a category there. satusuro 01:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You're being spammed because you've participated in the move discussion at Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)#Requested move. I'm seeking input for a broader policy solution to US station name articles at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) and I hope that you'll participate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Howtoreqphoto. œ^™ 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to do with this edit, but it looks as if the Wiki didn't either. Were you trying to ask for the dates of those references? They seem to be given... --GRuban (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that GRuban has worked out what {{dn}} is for; but please note that you can't use subst: inside <ref>...</ref> tags. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember that. The tool I use automatically does that so I'll just need to remove that and either add the date or let the bot add it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: you appear to have misread the article. It is not just the deck and rails of the bridge that is wooden, it is its system of support trusses, with the exception of a central span that is only a small fraction of the length of the whole bridge. Look at the photo: the concrete and steel part is only to the far left of the image; everything else is wood. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that simply says that it is a bridge that includes wood. A wooden bridge would not contain concrete or steel (except for the nails). Bottom line is that it is not a wooden bridge like the others in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

By your ridiculously strict criterion, only a bridge made by dry-fitting pieces of wood could count as a wooden bridge. Metal bolts, asphalt surfacing, or painted stripes would all disqualify it. Bottom line is that it is a bridge with multiple segments (as many bridges are), with one segment concrete and steel but the others wooden trusses. It therefore qualifies as a wooden bridge. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup on this new article.

I noticed you deleted the redlinks to two nearby wilderness areas. If you have a look at WP:REDLINK I think you'll agree that my use was in line with those recos -- as the article notes, good redlinks help Wikipedia to grow. Maybe these will catch someone's eye, who'll write them up? Such is my hope, anyway. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered adding an 'admin' userbox to your user page, or that little 'admin' icon-thingy to the top right corner of the page? I know you have the admin cat at the bottom, but for people looking at a glance, or especially new people who don't know any better, isn't preferable for you guys to be easily identifiable? Just wondering... - ^theWOLFchild 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I could. But as you may have noticed, I have not done much to the page since I first created it and have not prettied it up with those userboxes. The only graphic there is the one for the number of edits and how long I have been around. But you do have a point. I'll think about it. Have fun. Vegaswikian (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegas,

When I added a link to Las Vegas on the JC's Girls article, I thought I might get a visit from you switching it to a link to Las Vegas Valley. I can appreciate your desire to ensure that the links go to the right articles, but I don't see why you made the switch in this instance. The address of JC's Girls headquarters is 1001 New Beginnings Drive, Las Vegas. Isn't that in Las Vegas proper and not simply in Las Vegas Valley?

Neelix (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)