User talk:Bearcat/Archive 33

AfD Feminist Current
Since you created the AfD for Meghan Murphy, I wanted to inform you that there was also a page created for her blog around the same time which I nominated for deletion. Due to it's lack of notability, as well as the lack of citations available. ShimonChai (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

End of MPP terms
You've entered the following in several MPP pages: "A retiring or defeated MPP's term in office is denoted as ending at the writ drop, not election day". If you check the Ontario Legislative Assembly page you will see this is incorrect. For example, the 40th Parliament ended on May 2, 2014 but John Gerretsen, who did not seek re-election, is listed as being an MPP until June 11, 2014 as is Douglas Holliday, who was defeated. Senexcalibur (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That may not be the way you interpret the law, but that is the way the Ontario Legislative Assembly website interprets it and that's what we're stuck with unless you can convince them otherwise. You may be correct but until you can convince the Ontario Legislative Assembly website that they are wrong in rendering term dates for MPPs the way they do, you're view is original research. Senexcalibur (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've caught errors in the Parliament of Canada website, written to the site, and had them corrected. Yes, we are bound by the way the law works but we cannot interpret the law so I would suggest that you write the Legislature of Ontario website, inform them of their error, and when and if they correct it we can abide by it but for the time being the Legislature of Ontario website is our only source for the terms of MPPs, anything else, including your interpretation, correct or not, is original research regardless of how many years you've been here. If you'd like to send the website your correction, you can write them at web@ola.org Senexcalibur (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD Craig DiLouie page
Hi Bearcat, you proposed my page for deletion based on self-published sources, though I felt I was complying with the WP:SELFPUB rule, and another editor had previously accepted these sources. I replaced the sources as requested, which I hope are satisfactory. There is a citation requested for the claim I was born in New Jersey, but I can't prove that using a link. Should I delete it? Notability is not claimed due to the awards but instead under the Wikipedia policy, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Should I cite reviews following each work? I welcome your guidance to make the page compliant with Wikipedia's policies and ideally remove the AfD. Thank you!

Craig DiLouie 16 June 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Tian\anmen West Station listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tian\anmen West Station. Since you had some involvement with the Tian\anmen West Station redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jc86035 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing my userspace
I did not appreciate you editing my userspace without talking to me first. I used an existing template as a base for my template draft and forgot the categories were still there (I just went in changing names and didn't realize what I was changing was a category), but they will need to be there once the template goes live. I went back in and commented them out, which would have been a better solution for the situation. Aspening (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Walsh: Open Book, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barney's Version and Austin Clarke ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mary_Walsh:_Open_Book check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mary_Walsh:_Open_Book?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion
Why did you nominate my page NickiHndrxx Tour for deletion? I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know how to make it better. If you Bearcat could make it better that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albany6 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?
I am becoming concerned that we may be getting a pattern if semi-hagiographical articles about unelected candidates for public office. This, like the one I sent to AfD is also being promoted on the main page. I do note that she served as chair for the state Democratic Party, so that might count towards WP:N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox pages
Please excuse my ignorance. --TedColes (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the article categories. Sorry, I will keep that in mind. Malaiya (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Siege of Coruña, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page José Pacheco ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Siege_of_Coru%C3%B1a check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Siege_of_Coru%C3%B1a?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

AWB helping with WP:USERNOCAT
I see that you are using AWB to help with user pages which have categories. Are you intentionally using the results of Database reports/Polluted categories or are you working from a different source to find them. I'd love to be able to use AWB to do what you are doing. I was doing them relatively by hand.Naraht (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Superfluous reflist
Why have you added a second to pages that already have one? Why have you added the References section after the External links section, contrary to MOS:ORDER? For both cases,, but there are several others. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a thing I went around doing on purpose — it was an automatic "genfix" automatically applied by AWB independently of the task I had programmed for, because the pages were using non-standard formatting. If you actually look at those pages in edit mode, you'll notice that none of them actually have either "notes" or "external links" sections directly coded in the pages themselves — those sections are both transcluded by a footer template,, rather than being declared directly on the page itself.
 * AWB does not have the ability to recognize that a references section is being artificially created by a non-standard template, so it automatically added the reflist templates — and since AWB only shows the operator what pages look like in edit mode, and not in finished view mode, it was impossible for me to have any way of knowing that a references list was being artificially created by a non-standard template either.
 * So it may look stupid, but it wasn't an error on my part — the pages in question are pushing the reflist code off to a non-standard template in lieu of directly calling the reflist template themselves, so AWB applied the same automatic cleanup fixes it automatically applies to any page that has references but doesn't call reflist, and because I can only see what AWB sees (i.e. what the page looks like in edit mode, not what it looks like in view mode) I had no other way of knowing that reference lists were already being transcluded by a non-standard template either. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Does AWB not have a preview feature? I draw your attention to WP:AWBRULES no. 1. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't have any preview feature that renders the page in standard web-view mode. What it calls "preview" still just shows the text of the page, and doesn't call templates to render a complete visualization of what the page would look like to an end user. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note at WT:AWB. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * AWB does allow for previewing (click the 'preview button'). However, this sounds like an AWB bug more than a previewing issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would seem the correct fix here is to remove the sectioning/section transclusion from the footer template (or remove the section transclusion, at least). --Izno (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm curious as to what the reason is for the reflist to inside another template.Naraht (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty easy answer, to be honest. Somewhere along the way, somebody got the notion that "boilerplate" templates were a good way to standardize formatting across groups of related articles. For example, a set of "lists of the same thing divvied up by letter" might have a standardized introduction pushed off to a template, so that each list would just call that template instead of directly containing introductory text as a way to prevent their introductions from getting edited differently from one list to another — or another very common thing is to make navbox templates artificially transclude a topic category onto the articles in lieu of each article actually having that category declaration on it. It's harmless in some instances, certainly — but it can create unintended consequences in others, such as this situation or the use of a categorizing navbox template on a userspace or draftspace page. So there may need to be clearer rules in place about when it's appropriate to push basic page formatting off to a nested template like this and when it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TEMPLATECAT is explicit about templates adding categorization and WP:TG is explicit about article text in templates. --Izno (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Al Harlow Page
Could you please explain to me why the page Al Harlow was redirected to Prism. LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

...
I noticed you blocked 2603:3018:b00:a00:8889:d71a:b60e:2b36 indefinitely, but they should not be indefinitely blocked... Thanks! --24.180.87.149 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice for 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Reidgreg (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making a statement. I know you were neutral but you make a good point and I feel your calm and reasonable words raise the level of the discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IP block question
Hello! Just curious as to whether you meant this block to be an indef? Regardless, I just blocked the /64 for a year as they continue to edit all over the range. Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and undone the individual block as I assume you didn't mean to indef and the IP is covered in the range block I made.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:LGBT directors has been nominated for discussion
Category:LGBT directors, 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. JDDJS (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stone Makers


The article Stone Makers has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable short film, does not meet WP:NF"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Stone Makers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stone Makers 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 Articles for deletion/Stone Makers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User page deletion
Hello Bearcat,

I tracked you down using the Active users list, filtering for sysops. Could you please delete my user page?

Thank you, —Aɴᴀɴᴛᴀɢɪᴛᴀ ☍  /  07:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of CBC Music Top 20 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CBC Music Top 20 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 Articles for deletion/CBC Music Top 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Newslinger (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)