Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
Hello Femenist: I am requesting that you please undo your closure of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Bros Record Company]] and reinstate the AfD template to the article. With only one !vote following my nomination, I feel that this should be [[WP:RELIST]]ed, rather than abruptly closed. Sorry, but also, your closure comes across as a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 14:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Femenist: I am requesting that you please undo your closure of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Bros Record Company]] and reinstate the AfD template to the article. With only one !vote following my nomination, I feel that this should be [[WP:RELIST]]ed, rather than abruptly closed. Sorry, but also, your closure comes across as a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]</sup></span> 14:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
:I do not consider my closure to be controversial. Both you (the nominator) and the other commenter agreed that a redirect would be appropriate, and considering that blanking and redirecting a non-[[WP:N]] article is common practice that generally does not require discussion, a "redirect" closure is |
:I do not consider my closure to be controversial. Both you (the nominator) and the other commenter agreed that a redirect would be appropriate, and considering that blanking and redirecting a non-[[WP:N]] article is common practice that generally does not require discussion, a "redirect" closure reflects the consensus between all participants at the AfD. Per [[WP:NOQUORUM]] there is no minimum participation required for uncontroversial cases. But sure, I'll let someone else close it. [[User:Feminist|feminist]] ([[User talk:Feminist#top|talk]]) 14:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:27, 17 October 2018
This page was last edited or modified by Feminist (talk · contribs · count · logs · email) on Wednesday 14:27:33 October 17, 2018 UTC.
I have made some changes to the Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian pages, the ones about the Roman soldiers in western China. Let me know what you think of the edits so far, and please make some edits if you are interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 08:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
AWB vital article
Hi Feminist! I am currently adding {{Vital article}} templates to art-related articles' talk pages that need them. According to wp:TPL the template should be below {{Talk header}} or if the page has it, {{GA}}. I caught some of your addings on my watchlist and saw that they all conformed to wp:TPL, with the VA template automatically being placed below talk header. Do you use a custom module for this? If yes, may I borrow it? Thank you, Zingarese (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- If it’s very long, you may email me it. Zingarese (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I simply turn on Apply general fixes in AWB. feminist (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Your Q29 at the RfA
Maybe I'm missing some context here, but your question is loaded as it assumes the candidate believes the closure was inappropriate. I'm not sure what you're after, but I'd rephrase it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Cats
Why are Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat tagged as vital articles? These could both actually merge into Cat, which is the vital article. The main reason we have these two pages at all is just WP:SUMMARY style to keep the main article tight, and because people are often confused into thinking they are breeds rather than mongrel populations, and we're able to get the distinction across clearly in the lead section of each. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note that there was a recent discussion to list Domestic short-haired cat as a level 4 vital article. If you would like to discuss whether Domestic long-haired cat deserves to be a vital article or not, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. feminist (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Vital articles
I noticed that you recently tagged a number of primate articles as "vital articles." I am wondering what criteria you are using. For example, why is squirrel monkey a vital article but howler monkey is not? Why is tamarin a vital article but marmoset is not? Thank you. Rlendog (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- The articles I tagged are from the list at WP:Vital articles/Level/5. You are welcome to add articles to the list as you like. feminist (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to start with Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Animals. Add any articles you feel should be listed since the list is incomplete and currently under construction. feminist (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any method for getting consensus on which articles are "vital" or is it just random decisions by individual editors? Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Disputes on whether an article should be "vital" or not are usually settled on the talk pages. Because the Level 5 vital articles list is still under construction, any editor may add articles that they feel should be part of a list. I expect this to change when the list is close to completion, i.e. additions/removals would require discussion. You can see such a system happening with lower level (i.e. levels 1 to 4) vital articles. feminist (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any method for getting consensus on which articles are "vital" or is it just random decisions by individual editors? Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Barn Owl
Hi Feminist: I notice that you tagged the barn-owl article with the "vital article" template. Are you sure you didn't mean to tag the barn owl article instead? The former is about a biological family (the tytonidae). The latter is about a species and is the one on the vital article list. MeegsC (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I'm sure, Barn owl is already listed and tagged as a Level 4 (i.e. more important) vital article. feminist (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
IABot bug
In two cases an edit you are responsible for were done incorrectly: [1] and [2] (duplicate archiveurls). I reported the bug to the bot owner. In the mean time, always check bot edits and report errors to the bot owner - bots are sort of like cruise control on a car, it can still make mistakes it's not totally hands off, and designers depend on user feedback to continually refine and improve. -- GreenC 14:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion about The Sun
There is a discussion about retargeting The Sun from Sun to a disambiguation page. Because you have participated in the previous discussion, I am inviting you to participate in the current discussion here - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_25#The_Sun. The editor whose username is Z0 07:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Your BRFA
Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 4, has been approved. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Invitation
Dear Feminist,
You are cordially invited to join the Portals WikiProject.
This is a very active project. We are in the process of completely revamping the entire portal system, and cleaning up the portal namespace. After these are done, we'll be greatly expanding the collections of portals. We have many design discussions going on, and many task types to choose from.
We also have a newsletter, that covers the progress of portal development, and the latest toys.
If you are interested, please feel welcome to sign-up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Project_participants.
By the way, I'm very interested in what you think of portals. What do you like most about them? What do they lack that they should have? What can't they do, that you would like them to be able to do?
I look forward to your replies. — The Transhumanist 09:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: Please {{ping}} me in your reply. Thank you. -TT
Dubious vital article claims on games
How do you justify Cornhole and Sport stacking as "vital article"s? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- These two articles are on the list at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life. If you would like to dispute their inclusion you may start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. feminist (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Remove_Curtis_LeMay So "vital article" is just a joke then? I'll stop worrying about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I also do have to wonder what the process is for determining this sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, a small part of my small brain has spent the last few weeks wondering how Midnight (horse) -- ranked as Low-importance by both of the Wikiprojects he's included under -- trotted into a vital article classification. I suppose I'll go and have a look at the talk page mentioned above. (A horse walks into a bar, the barman says
Why the long face?
) MPS1992 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, a small part of my small brain has spent the last few weeks wondering how Midnight (horse) -- ranked as Low-importance by both of the Wikiprojects he's included under -- trotted into a vital article classification. I suppose I'll go and have a look at the talk page mentioned above. (A horse walks into a bar, the barman says
- Well, I also do have to wonder what the process is for determining this sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5#Remove_Curtis_LeMay So "vital article" is just a joke then? I'll stop worrying about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Category:Male critics of feminism has been nominated for discussion
Category:Male critics of feminism, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. TM 20:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Removing "coeducational" from the lede of college and university articles
You're correct: only a handful of U.S. colleges are still single-sex institutions. I remove that from the lede of articles when I see it, too. ElKevbo (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
updating?/question
Hi, I have question to you. [3] In this edition I have tried updated counts on vital article project page but I am not sure my editions were right. When I checked number of articles in section Miscellaneous, I have noticed that number is fewer. When you have updated number of counts, the number was higher, although as 6 August [4] there were(?) 523 articles in this section. Is this mistake of AWB or my mistake? Or bots' mistake? To by my honestly I do not understand what AWB excatly is. I'm just making sure my editions/updating were right. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Article counts on that page are updated by User:Bot0612. I'd say the bot is wrong (i.e. you are wrong but it's a common mistake) and I was right, as there are obviously more than 523 articles on that page (e.g. 290 businesspeople + 184 explorers + 250 people in crime is already 724 people). WP:AWB is software that automates editing; it also has a Make list function that I used to count the number of articles on each page. feminist (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. Now I see clearly that it was my omission. Anyway propably we will should updating this page soon, for this discussion. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you think about updating quotas month after month? In Wikipedia talk:Vital articles we have table where is describe how a lot of articles has been corrected for last years. To Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5 we could add table which describe how a lot of articles has been added to the level 5 for last months Dawid2009 (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Code Required
What code do I need to use in AutoWikiBrowser to calculate the numbers present in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 page. I am not going to do it in english wikipedia. Instead I need to use it in malayalam wikipedia. If that code cannot be mentioned here, please do sent me an email. Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't use any special code. I use the Links on page option in Make list, input the page title (e.g. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists), then filter the list to include only mainspace pages. feminist (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Qatar Amiri Flight editing
Your edut is wrong that plane got Handed/Gifted to the Turkish Goverment if you dint belive me go and have a look BuckShot38 (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I know a 747-8 was gifted. This doesn't mean the whole airline was handed over to the Turkish government. feminist (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Korean melon RM closure
There clearly is not 'consensus against the move'. Did you actually read the discussion? There were only two commenters, one of them supported a move to the scientific name, which I supported, and one was arguing about what the scientific name was. Clearly the correct response was to relist for more input, and I will ask that you do this. If you do not, I will file a move review. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: There were not two commenters but five. You disappeared three of them by first retracting the proposal, then reinstating it a whopping 73 minutes later. You somehow forgot to notify the editors whose contributions you thereby removed, although you did go to other editors' talk pages in the matter. Damvile (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I infringed on your Austrian-related articles territory. I'll do better next time. Can we dispense with the absurdities and focus on the god-damned article title criteria? No? We'd rather have politics, politics...never again will I edit one of your articles, so can you just read the proposal as a neutral observer? No? Why am I wasting my time on this god-forsaken hell-hole....? RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: There were not two commenters but five. You disappeared three of them by first retracting the proposal, then reinstating it a whopping 73 minutes later. You somehow forgot to notify the editors whose contributions you thereby removed, although you did go to other editors' talk pages in the matter. Damvile (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
vital articles
Hi, Do you can check my changes here and later add them to Wikipedia space in right technical way (I do not know ENwiki's cod because of I am redaktor from PLwiki). Alpine Snowboarding, Alpine Skiing and Corss-country skiing should be certainly in the same category. Also every tabletop game should be in tabletop games category. It would be very valuable for our project. Because of when we will make new selctions by nomination and votings... People will be confused if seleciton is broken from start point/position and suggestions for new sections such like specific sports etc. would be very hard to disscussion (too many explainings these complicated things at talk page) regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- What do you think about new section called: "Surface Water Sports" (water sport section+ surfing section + maybe something else?). In my opinion we should have this section else. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I don't have an issue with it and I think no discussion is needed, but if you want to discuss this, better do so at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. feminist (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Boycott Eurovision 2019
Hi, I made an article that I saw its necessary to be created because it has been presented a lot in the news. You redirect it to Eurovision Song Contest 2019 article saying POV "nightmare"! Do you really have a legit reason to redirect an article that as I mentioned very well represented in the news? . Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Calls for a boycott of Eurovision 2019 have been sufficiently covered in the article for the event. There is no need for a separate article, in fact a separate article would be harmful as it presents a particular viewpoint, violating WP:NPOV. You may also want to take a look at WP:NOTNEWS. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
AfD
Hello Femenist: I am requesting that you please undo your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Bros Record Company and reinstate the AfD template to the article. With only one !vote following my nomination, I feel that this should be WP:RELISTed, rather than abruptly closed. Sorry, but also, your closure comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. North America1000 14:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I do not consider my closure to be controversial. Both you (the nominator) and the other commenter agreed that a redirect would be appropriate, and considering that blanking and redirecting a non-WP:N article is common practice that generally does not require discussion, a "redirect" closure reflects the consensus between all participants at the AfD. Per WP:NOQUORUM there is no minimum participation required for uncontroversial cases. But sure, I'll let someone else close it. feminist (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)