User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive8

Speedy renaming[edit]

Hi Mike

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=336951648&oldid=336899777 this edit] you removed from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy a proposal to rename Category:Defunct NFL Teams seasons to Category:Defunct NFL teams seasons. You used no edit summary, so there was no explanation of why you did this.

I have reverted that removal, because I can see no reason for it. If you object to the renaming, just reply to it indicating that you object, and explain your reason. It will then be moved out of the queue, and can be taken to a full CFD discussion if the nominator wants to do that. However, just deleting it provides the nominator with no trace as to what happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a reason, not in the edit summary but in the actual text of my comment. Can only certain administrators can move things out of the queue?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Mike Selinker! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ricky Bell (cornerback) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Fabiola da Silva - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lin Dunn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Playing to Win[edit]

A tag has been placed on Playing to Win requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed category renaming[edit]

Hello, a category you created has been nominated for renaming: from Category:The Wipers songs to Category:Wipers songs. You can comment here if you wish. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Designers.[edit]

Next we will have Wikipedians re-writing history because the facts don't suit Wikipedia. What's the world coming to? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into that debate. If all the "games by designer" categories are nominated, it's likely that anything I say will be brought up as a conflict of interest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid to tip me off if they should do that. I can't promise I would agree with you, although I know nothing about video/games, as a hardened contributor to songs by songwriter I can't see enough difference not to worry me. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The Faint songs[edit]

I have nominated Category:The Faint songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The New Sound Quartet albums[edit]

I have nominated Category:The New Sound Quartet albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:The Bee Gees members[edit]

CfD nomination of Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball coaches[edit]

I have nominated Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into another category. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mm40 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Bitweaver from creation[edit]

Hi, would you mind unprotecting Bitweaver from creation? I have a page draft ready here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver. Thanks for your effort in advance.--Kozuch (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate in the AFD, and I have no independent means of verifying whether it has become more notable. Is there a WikiProject that can decide whether it's notable enough now?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:ELP members[edit]

CfD nomination of Category:Arena Football League[edit]

Kutty[edit]

Hey dude, i saw u have delete the templates box for reviews in kutty film wikipedia. Iwant you to create back the tempates box and the reviews!!! Please do not do anything so stupid!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravinraj (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Man-Raze members[edit]

Category:Ports?[edit]

What about the totally separate tree of subcats for Category:Ports and harbours? I would think you would want to merge them together one name or the other, or maybe create Category:Harbours out of it? Do you and Peterkingiron want the same on this question or different? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I would say that there are ports and there are populated places, and they don't need an intersection category. So I might just move everything to "Ports in (X)" (and seriously, ports and harbors are too the same thing, for all practical purposes), and make sure the inhabited ones have a "Populated places in (X)" category as well. But I don't know how complicated that would be.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places bot[edit]

Thanks. That list is far from complete So, I guess the question I need to find an answer to is how to add to it. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places[edit]

What about Category:Populated places in Afghanistan by province and Category:Settlements in Brazil by state? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the nomination, so I don't know what was missed. If there are some like the Brazil one that need to be added, add them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Recorded music characters[edit]

Category:Recorded music characters, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Left For Dead members[edit]

Category:Left For Dead members, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD[edit]

You welcome. Anyways, I think related WikiProjects and/or their active users should've been notified much earlier. Not everyone has categories in his watchlist. As for the proposed change, I don't oppose the change per se. I just think the renaming proposal should exclude categories, which are already crafted to reflect official subdivisions and nomenclature. - Darwinek (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement there. In my opinion, we should only make the changes that have broad consensus, and when the nomination went from catchalls like "Cities, towns, and villages" (which I think should be converted) into "Cities and towns," it ventured into a territory that was outside the original consensus. So rather than opposing everything or supporting everything, I think we should find all the things we do agree on, within the scope of the original consensus. Thanks again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. I did not support the idea of renaming the Cities in and Towns in and Cities and towns cats into Populated places in, only the merged Cities, towns and villages categories which are the only sub category of "Settlements in...". As Darwinek said in the CFD these are distinct for a reason. What I support then is the renaming of all the categories which have ALL settlements in the Cities, towns and villages categories to Populated places in and a renaming of the parent category of Settlements in to Populated places in.... For those which are split by Cities and towns in and Villages in etc I believe those are done so because they are officially recognized by the government and those should be left untouched. Darwinek and another of the others think you plan on merging every city and town category into a Populated places category. This isn't true, am I right? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm planning to merge anything. It wasn't my nomination, as you know. I think I've been very clear that I backed off of my support from that section once someone pointed out the problem.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny isn't it how this was very well publicized on noticeboards and few people seemed to care. Now when the changes are being made people suddenly take notice. Always the way... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Nobody's going to jail here. I'm sure we'll get something most folks can live with.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles[edit]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with those two games.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Cities and towns[edit]

I am thinking I will let someone else renominate articles, hopefully once the main CfD closes and there is consesous at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Cities and towns. I don't really understand why you split out all those group, separate from each other. That normally is a bad idea-- as people don't really want to comment for each one separatly. One reason I am not planing to renominate is that while the "oppose" arguments lacked any merit I could see, I did not follow all the aruments very closely either. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. The "oppose" arguments seemed overwhelmingly persuasive to me, and were in danger of undermining the consensus on the entire nomination. In Russia, there is no difference whatsoever between "Cities" and "towns," so that category is as clearly about one thing. But in the US, the division is clear, so if you hadn't withdrawn the nomination (which was totally cool with me), a few of them might have passed. But there's no way the India, Russia, Poland, etc. "Cities and towns" ones would have, or at least not unless a closer simply ignored all of those "Oppose" votes. It was a lose-lose situation, so in that case, I kinda played triage. But I should have checked with you first. I'm sorry it came across wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UConn Huskies women's basketball head coaches[edit]

Hello, why did you revert my edit on Geno Auriemma's page? The category UConn Huskies women's basketball head coaches is likely to be merged due to it being a category in a category with only one article. Markvs88 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you caught me in the middle of a process. I'm setting up a CfD merge request for the entire set of college women's head coaches tree. But emptying the category out of turn is generally frowned upon, so I put it back so that wouldn't become an issue. I expect the Geno Auriemma article will move to where you had it in due time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was curious as to what the idea was. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The nomination is now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_10#Women.27s_college_basketball_head_coaches if you want to weigh in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mike Selinker. You have new messages at User:NThomas.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders football head coaches[edit]

I've reverted the category back to its format from the beginning of the month, and I've restored the category on one of the individuals who belongs in it. This should be enough to prevent deletion except by CFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed dams?[edit]

Mike, I was unaware of the discussion related to changing 'future' to 'proposed' on the 'Future dams' category. While a bunch of the dams in the category were in planning stages and therefore proposed, a good portion are under construction and will be future dams. I will have to recreate the 'Future dams' category and reassess the pages. I don't disagree with the existence of proposed category. Was any notice any notice of the discussion placed on any of the effected articles/categories? I would have appreciated a heads up.--NortyNort (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notify the category creators, because there were a couple hundred categories affected by a single terminology change. The idea is that "future" represents something unknowable; a dam under construction could easily never reach full activity, and thus never be a dam. So what I proposed was a term (originally "Planned" but consensus swung to "Proposed") that addressed the fact that a structure had been proposed but not some science-fiction scenario where we knew it would open. Given the consensus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with creating an "under construction" category; there are a lot of those. But the "Future" concept didn't get any support. So if you'd like to recreate Category:Future dams, you might want to bring this up on WP:DRV. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be three distinct categories a project can fall under: proposed, under construction and existing. "Under construction dams" will suffice, thanks.--NortyNort (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go with "Dams under construction." There are parallel categories at Category:Bridges under construction, Category:Buildings under construction, and Category:Stadiums under construction, possibly among others.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks.--NortyNort (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball[edit]

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pretty weak on this subject.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover settlements[edit]

You may want to look at the nomination. What did you intend to do? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Fixed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One wonders if the ancient Greeks had a name for these that is different from modern usage. Not objecting to the proposal, but just thinking. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Entirely possible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns CFD tags[edit]

Mike, User:Ezhiki had requested me to remove the CFD tags that my bot added. I wanted to check with you if you are okay with it. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It seems like no one's ready to nominate the "Cities and towns" ones again, so there's no reason to keep those tags on. Thanks for doing that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for Cyde's help for this. The CFD text complicates the task for me. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that maybe these should be renominated to use the English version of what they are called. Rathaus being one example, at least for the administrative buildings. One could draw the conclusion that there is also a word for the settlements that reflects both. Yes, this would take research by country. But it could be done over time. If there is no word that actually describes both, then they can be split. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is to use the word "municipalities" for a place like Russia, where "city" and "town" are the same word. The weird thing is that since they are the same word, it reads as "cities and cities." So it would be nice if there was a single word we could use for each area. But I may not be able to gain consensus on that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in, but "municipalities" won't cut it, because the concepts of the municipal and the administrative divisions are clearly separated in Russia. Cities and towns are administrative units; municipally they are incorporated as something else entirely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 17:40 (UTC)

Of course they are. Okay, back to the drawing board.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's nothing like Russian bureaucracy to screw up an otherwise nicely structured system :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 19:28 (UTC)

Sakha[edit]

Thanks, Mike. I've tweaked the note somewhat so it better complies with the terminology we use across the Wikipedia. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 17:38 (UTC)

Great. FYI, as a longtime owner of pet hedgehogs, I approve of your username.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, nothing could make me happier :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 19:26 (UTC)

Fatal mistake[edit]

Regarding this discussion: allow me to explain where you went wrong. If you're ever trying to bring some level of standardization to the category structure and you want to succeed, always remember to omit the Australia-related categories from the proposal, because opposition to the Australia-related categories will always take the overall nomination down in flames. You just have to nominate them all, and once all the changes have been made, nominate the Australia-related ones and allow them to be different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(CYA statement: My comments above are made somewhat facetiously, and just in case a user wants to identify this comment as evidence of past malfeasance on my part, I must say I've never carried out my own advice in the paragraph above, nor do I intend to.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you tried to delete an Australian shopping mall article in the past have you? The other one is Jewish anything. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just change the name on a category when the one for Australia was the only one in the scheme that didn't conform to the standard. I've been receiving hate mail ever since. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a disastrous decision on my part. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent close[edit]

of the homeopathic categories CfD. You state there is no policy to direct you. You seem to have forgotten WP:NPOV and gone in the wrong direction. Please reverse or give full reasoning why you have ignored these policy based arguments. Verbal chat 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore the arguments at all. Half the people wanted one change, half the people wanted another, no one wanted the status quo. Something had to change, and I made the decision I thought was the right one. I'm not surprised you disagree. If you want to bring it up on WP:DRV, go right ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't explained why you ignored the NPOV concerns. Please do, as that might make the DRV moot. Verbal chat 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't explain something I didn't do. I paid attention to the concerns, decided they were outweighed by other comments, and made one of the two recommended changes, which I knew would not please the other side.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you explain then how you decided that the non-neutral form should be preferred, despite NPOV? Verbal chat 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can explain my reasoning, but I cannot explain it in a manner which validates the non-neutral terms you're using to describe the close. My reasoning was this: You said, multiple times, "remedies" was NPOV. Two other editors supported your position. Five editors supported the exact opposite position, endorsing the much more common term for these things. One editor didn't have a preference. Your argument did not convince me that "remedies" was NPOV, and the larger number of editors taking the opposite position did convince me that "remedies" was the more common term. In the presence of conflict, I went with the certainty that "remedies" was more common than the theory that "remedies" was NPOV. That's my position after reading the arguments. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My questions were not meant to be leading or non neutral. I'm not convinced your arithmetic is quite correct. 2/0 was originally for remedies, and then neutral - as were others. However, votes cannot trump policy - and NPOV is a core policy. There was consensus for merge, but there was no consensus for the direction of the merge - and one direction goes against NPOV. Can you explain why you didn't close as no consensus as there was no consensus for the direction of the merge. It is not my intention to hound you, but I do genuinely believe you made the wrong close procedurally and per policy. I hope you don't take this personally. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I certainly don't take it personally. You clearly don't agree with my decision, and I don't agree with your position that "remedies" is NPOV. There's no further explanation possible. So you probably need to take it to DRV if you want it redressed. But I have no personal attachment to the decision, so it won't bother me one bit if you do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent[edit]

Thank you for your evaluation of this debate.--Lawrlafo (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy[edit]

Would you consider changing the close comment on the talk page? This was not a simple keep close. It was keep but restructuring suggested or something like that close. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. 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. (Note: I am not the initiator of the DRV, I'm simply doing the notification part.) — ξ ^xplicit 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD help[edit]

Please see here I honestly have no idea what's going on with this category, and I've seen you at CfD before, so I figured you might be able to shed some light. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 4#Category:College sports teams in the United States[edit]

I have to disagree with your closure in this case. You attempted to find consensus where there was none, and in so doing, you've combined various categories that should be distinct. In the US, at least, there are definite differences between an "athletic program", a proper "college team", and a "club team". choster pointed out the latter distinction in the course of the CfD, but surprisingly no one commented on the distinction between an athletic program and a team. As an example of the distinction, Eastern Michigan Eagles is an article about the athletic program, while Eastern Michigan Eagles football, Eastern Michigan Eagles basketball, etc. are about teams. This is a distinction that really should be reflected in the categories; athletic programs should not be in the same category as teams. Obviously I would have raised this point had I noticed the CfD nomination, but I only became aware of it when I saw several articles on my watchlist recategorized. Thank you in advance for reconsidering this closure. cmadler (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction, but that seems like an academic one to me. The new category has only two types of contents: articles with names like Akron Zips, and categories with names like Category:Akron Zips. There are no articles of the type Category:Akron Zips football in this category. So while the distinction you make is a valid one, it doesn't apply to any articles in the new category. If your concern is only the name and not the contents, you might consider posting a CfD nomination of your own to make it Category:College sports programs in the United States. That might resolve the issue you're bringing up. Does that make sense? If not, I would recommend taking the discussion to WP:DRV, and obviously if people disagree with me there, it'll all be put back. I would certainly not be offended if you did.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. I will consider the issue, and possibly post a CfD to rename it. I was forgetting that we still have categories such as Category:College football teams, so you're right: it is primarily a naming issue and not a contents issue. cmadler (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did find one outlier in the category, CU Triathlon Team. So I moved it to Category:Colorado Buffaloes. Otherwise, the category has no single-sport teams in it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William & Mary categories[edit]

Hello. I saw your speedy CfD to merge Category:William & Mary Tribe athletes into Category:William and Mary Tribe athletes. Those two certainly need to be merged, but there's an issue with many of the William & Mary categories. The main article for the university is The College of William & Mary and its main category is Category:The College of William & Mary. The main article for the sports teams is William & Mary Tribe and the football and basketball articles follow that form. But the subcategories of Category:The College of William & Mary, referring to both athletics and other topics, use "and" instead of the ampersand. Also the main category for the sports team is Category:College of William and Mary athletics, whereas it should be Category:William & Mary Tribe to match how analogous categories for other schools are phrased. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, then perhaps a reverse merge is needed. I will investigate. Thanks for the heads-up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw you made all the necessary nominations. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, yeah, I meant to let you know that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

How come a couple of the categories in the William & Mary renaming never got either moved or deleted? For example:

Category:William and Mary Tribe football head coaches was moved to Category:William & Mary Tribe football head coaches but the former was never deleted
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: College of William and Mary was never moved to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The College of William & Mary

Any reasons? Jrcla2 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former is because the coaches template auto-populates the category, and that hasn't reset automatically yet. These can take a few days sometimes, but it will take care of itself. The WIkipedians one isn't clear to me, but it probably has something to do with how the userbox is scripted. I'll find out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Gotcha. Sounds good. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople by city[edit]

Will your decision to close the discussion as merging here result in the merging of all of the sportspeople by city articles recently created or shall I go ahead and do a mass CfD? It seems silly given that we have twice had this discussion and twice agreed to merge them.--TM 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct says the others would likely go the same way. However, they will have to be nominated first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zero-carbon economy[edit]

I've added a new nom to propose merging Category:Zero-carbon economy up to Category:Low-carbon economy. However, if you are prepared to consider that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 9#Category:Carbon economy was adequate to resolve this, please implement it and delete my nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when you down-merged Category:Carbon economy, you put the target Category:Low-carbon economy into itself rather than into the former's head categories. I guess that was just a rare slip; I'd made a copy of the original so I was able to correct it (as a non-admin). - Fayenatic (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, just me not looking where I was driving. Thanks for the correction. I do the think the new nomination deserves a chance for comments, because it's not quite the same thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Skid Row members[edit]

Category:Skid Row members, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Skid Row songs[edit]

Category:Skid Row songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Timbuk 3 music videos[edit]

Category:Timbuk 3 music videos, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're at ANI[edit]

Please see the "User:Mike Selinker - WP:3P violation" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for letting me know.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Transport - Portal:Transport - Category:Transport[edit]

Could you help in creating a list of all categories containing the word "transport" or "transportation"? TruckCard (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only could find these search results, which I would take as indicators that the top categories should use "transport":

12,000+ categories use "transport" [1]
3,900+ categories use "transportation" [2]

Could you re-consider your speedy revert? I did not change any category after your request on my talk. If this story goes into the press people would laugh about WP. TruckCard (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to wait until your WP:ANI discussion about me ends before I move forward with anything related to this subject. Let's see where that goes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Madonna[edit]

Hi; should we interpret your comments at WP:CFDS with respect to Category:Films directed by Madonna as opposition to the rename being made speedily? Have another look there at your comment and two responses to it, one by me. If it is opposed, I can move it to a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and rename it. It seems a bit silly, but if it's part of a greater effort to clarify by article title, I won't object.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think perhaps sometime we need to address this issue head-on—if a name is disambiguated in a parent category, do all of the subcategories receive the disambiguation? The answer now seems to be "yes", but I understand the position that it can produce seeming absurd disambiguations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah. I'm not into overdisambiguation. I don't think "Rush songs" is about speedily played ones, for example. But I think I'm in the CfD minority, if perhaps not the Wikipedia minority, on this one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fictional mongooses[edit]

Category:Fictional mongooses, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Mike Selinker. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Categorizing redirects[edit]

Hi Mike, I note that you have been removing categories from redirects, stating "no need". These are permitted in WP:Categorizing redirects, e.g. for links to sections, and are useful where small articles have been merged. Will you accept it if I reverse some of your changes? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less convinced they're useful in those cases. Castle Storm most assuredly isn't a member of Category:Fictional mammals, for example. But if we're talking about something very specific, like Targ (Star Trek) being in a category of Star Trek creatures, then sure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File-Class close[edit]

Hey there! I'm sorry I missed the merge close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 3#Category:Image-Class articles. I've been away for the past two months and, in truth, did not expect the discussion to last quite so long (I made the nomination in May and it remained open through July).

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that, over the next few days, I will take a look at Wikipedia:Rename of Image-class to File-class and work to address any part of the implementation that is not yet complete (including updating incoming links). Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot has been done. Though I'm not sure why the Baseball, Louisville, and those few other categories weren't done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has: most of the content has been moved and the old categories deleted. The few that haven't been done yet appear to be in the job queue still (though I'll check more closely just to be sure). For example, you can find File talk:001B4375 Brett Gardner.jpg in Category:Image-Class Baseball articles, but checking the file talk page will show that it is in fact in Category:File-Class Baseball articles. In any case, I'll check for and perform any remaining work (including updating broken incoming links) over the course of the next few days. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of wars on concepts[edit]

The article List of wars on concepts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There don't appear to be reliable sources for this article. It is proposed for deletion underWikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information after noting that neither the topic nor the title of the article is typical of encyclopedic treatment of a general subject of interest.

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 {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Numeracy in Latin America[edit]

The article Numeracy in Latin America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not for essays.

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 {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ray^Talk 04:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. It's not my article. It's User:Uctpasa's.--Mike Selinker(talk) 04:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numeracy in Latin America[edit]

If this article is to be kept, could you provide appropriate attribution for whoever wrote the content originally on the talk page or the like ? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I tracked down the original author. Sorry to bother you. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good luck!--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Numeracy in Latin America for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Numeracy in Latin America, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numeracy in Latin America until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ray^Talk 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Category:Portal:anything[edit]

I see that you closed that CfD discussion as rename, but haven't actually renamed the categories. What's up with that? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bots apparently couldn't handle the rename in portalspace. So they're over onWorking/Manual waiting for Cyde to see if CydeBot can be modified to make it work. There may be other ways other than hand-changing them, but I'd like to see if the bot approach works first beforethose 52 other portal categories I nominated get thrown into the hopper.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem with the bot is a simple matter of a double prefix. I'd recommend:

Copy each of the categories manually to its target.
Use AWB to move the pages fromthe old category to the new one.
Delete the old categories.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't know how to use AWB.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think tht not enough users pay attention to the manual CfD working page - a better way to do it would probably be to add it to WP:CFDW in the format of * NO BOTS [[:Category:Portal:source]] to [[:Category:Target portal]] - the NO BOTS will prevent the bots from looking at the rest of the relevant lines, while several human admins go through that page every day. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I put it to start, but someone moved it to Manual. Feel free to move it if you've got a plan.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category split[edit]

Ready for deletion Category:Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan has now been split and I am now removing it from articles to empty it for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criticism_of_Richard_Dawkins[edit]

Hi Mike. Thanks for closingWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_29#Category:Criticism_of_Richard_Dawkins. I don't think the list of four articles has the making of an article at this stage, so I listified the category membership to a section inRichard_Dawkins. If you don't disagree, I suppose that this means the category is ready to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Away it goes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coulton[edit]

Hey, Congrats on the interview with Jonathan Coulton. --Kbdank71 13:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. He was very kind to take time to talk about what must be an complex subject for him.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fictional tasmanian devils[edit]

Category:Fictional tasmanian devils, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha 22:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regionalism[edit]

I removed all the articles that dealt with international relations (I think) and put them in Category:Regionalism (international relations). The remaining articles deal with sub-national politics, and the category can now be renamed toCategory:Regionalism (politics). --Kevlar (talk •contribs) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for doing that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College conference categorization[edit]

Mike, I see you do a lot of editing concerning sports categories. I'm working on cleaning up college conference categories and wanted to get some feedback from you. Take a look at Category:Big Ten Conference. I created new subcategoriesCategory:Big Ten Conference schools to group the Big Ten Conference member schools and Category:Big Ten Conference teams to group the member team/programs. I also created Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by athletic conference and Category:College sports teams in the United States by conference to gather up these sorts of conference subcategories at a national level. There's really a lot of inconsistency with how schools and teams are categorized under their conference and my aim is to systematize that with the structure I've laid out for the Big Ten. Let me know you if have any thoughts, suggestions, or objections about this.

Also, taking a look at Category:College sports teams in the United States by team, I see that in many cases both team articles and team categories are categorized there, e.g. Akron Zips and Category:Akron Zips. Shouldn't only Category:Akron Zips be there. Isn't it over-categorization to list Akron Zips there as well?

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's overcategorization, and it would seem a fine thing to remove the team articles from the category, assuming a subcategory with that team name is there. As far as conferences go, my lizard brain remembers an argument years ago about teams jumping from conference to conference, and in some cases (e.g., Notre Dame) being in a conference for one sport and not in one for another. So that may be a hornet's nest. But it doesn't bother me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay musicians[edit]

Hello: I'm a bit late to the party, having just discovered that Category:Gay musicians was nominated for deletion, and subsequently deleted. I would have participated in the discussion but I didn't know about it until it was over. I see that Category:Lesbian musicians and Category:Bisexual musicians have not been deleted. This seems to be contrary to the rationale that was used to delete Category:Gay musicians, and by not deleting them, would imply that female homosexual musicians and bisexual musicians of any gender are allowed to have their own category, while male homosexual musicians are not. Thoughts? –BMRR (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in that nomination would lead me to believe they would be merged to Category:LGBT musicians, just as Gay musicians was. But they were not nominated in that nomination, so I did not address them. No slight was intended. If you have a concern, feel free to bring it up on WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with deleting Category:Gay musicians, although I'm not sure if that really solves the problem identified by the nominator. Categorizing someone as a "gay musician" or as an "LGBT musician" is really the same thing, in my opinion. Both categories identify the subject of the article as someone who is not heterosexual, and I thought the rationale for deleting Category:Gay musicians was that a person's non-heterosexuality isn't relevant to their music. At any rate, I just think we should be consistent. :-) At some point, some well-meaning person is going to come along, see that there's a lesbian category and a bi category and think "Gee, why isn't their a gay category?" and (re)create it. Thanks, BMRR (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Maybe this should be re-opened. Take it to DRV, please.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason[edit]

I don't know, I honestly don't care! --TIAYN (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I shall move it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple categories for renaming[edit]

Hi Mike – I know you're active when it comes to category renaming, specifically when it comes to standardizing colleges and their respective athletic programs (example). I'm not really sure how to mass-nominate categories, so I thought I'd let you know about a couple different ones I found which I thought you might take the reigns on:

Category:Mount Saint Mary's University → Category:Mount St. Mary's University because the official school article's title uses "St."
Category:Gardner-Webb University → Category:Gardner–Webb University because the school uses an en dash, not a hyphen

Let me know if you can make these noms. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done anddone.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central-owned enterprises in China[edit]

In China, state-owned enterprises are a bit different from central-owned enterprises. State-owned enterprises are wholly or partly owned by city or provincial governments. But central-owned enterprises are owned by the central government. Chinese government clearly classified two kinds of enterprises. Link: [3] Of course their operation modes are different. That's why I classified them as two different categories. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move of categories linked to Gießen[edit]

Hi Mike. Could you help me understand the logic for moving various categories associated with Gießen to the Giessen spelling? The main article is spelt Gießen despite attempts to change this, so we now have articles and categories out of step. Personally I can live with either (Giessen is a common English spelling), but we should at least be consistent or it will be confusing. Looking at the debate, I counted 3 votes for and 3 votes against which I would have thought means we should leave it at Gießen. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it was a tough call. Something needed to change—either the University of Giessen categories or the city of Gießen categories. There was a split, but no one favored having the categories out of step with each other. I weighed the arguments, decided that a No Consensus close just left a mess, and made a judgment call. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the middle of weighing the arguments for that but got called away from the pc. I was leaning toward closing it the same way you did, if that means anything. WP:Article titles, specifically COMMONNAME and UE, is pretty clear on the issue. --Kbdank71 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good to hear.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small typographical issue[edit]

Just so you know In this edit toWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, you called ndashes (–) mdashes (—). As you might be able to tell, the text of your requests includes shorter ndashes ("Gardner–Webb") and your request is preceded by a longer mdash ("— C2C em-dash".) This is really no big deal as the character that you are requesting is the proper one, you have just mislabeled it as an mdash. I only bring up this matter because it might be confusing in the future if you are calling ndashes mdashes. Anyway.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Yes, I know the difference between the two, not that you could tell.--18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transportation logos[edit]

Category:Transportation logos was redirected to Category:Transport logos per CFD, but not done yet. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone needs to use AWB to move all those files, because Cydebot can't do it on its own. I expect it'll happen soon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Kbdank71 17:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool beans.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good close[edit]

That was a tough but good call (I think) on the deletion discussion of Category:Contemporary architecture. Thanks for your sharp consideration! Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not tough at all. The article Contemporary architecture shows how spongy this concept is on Wikipedia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You got that right! :P
- Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential[edit]

Hello. I think you may have used an incorrect edit summary for your deletion of Category:Wikipedia categories for redirects based on page history or potential. You wrote "C2: Speedy renaming". This category was nominated for deletion and had nothing to do with speedy renaming. Just thought I'd let you know. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Yeah, I just mishandled the pulldown menu. Not sure what I can do about it now.--Mike Selinker(talk) 04:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]