User talk:Bearcat/Archive 66

WGC Screenwriting Awards
Use the edit summary. You have a hard time with this. 2020 for example, children and preschool are separate categories.

Just follow along with how the categories are for each year. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed a valid source that I added. It was from The TV Junkies.  You should restore it.  Don't remove valid sources.  You never give summaries are reasons for removing, changing, or adding things.  It's there for a reason.  Use it.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When you're editing a subsection, the subsection header is an edit summary in and of itself; there is no rule that there always have to be extra words if the things you're doing are straightforward and don't actually need explanations or clarifications. Edit summaries are encouraged, but not always mandatory; there are some contexts where they're not necessary.


 * 1) I am in no way failing "to follow along with what the categories are" — the fact that I copy-pasted a base template to save some time, and am making the relevant changes as I get to each year, is not a failure to do my job.

Incidentally, you need to understand that the sources for article content need to be reliable source coverage in media. I see that sometime in 2020, when the article had no sources at all, you removed a {[tl|primarysources}} tag on the grounds that "It can rely on primary sources since there are no sources to begin with...", but that's dead wrong. An article isn't allowed to rely on primary sources in lieu of media coverage, because the rule is that the sources have to be reliable source coverage in media, and an article that is relying on primary sources has to be either tagged for needing reliable sources or deleted outright as not notable at all. And even the source you added for one year overnight was the WGC's own self-published press release about itself, which still isn't an acceptable source — again, the rule is that the sources have to be media coverage, because the presence or absence of media coverage is what determines whether the award is even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article at all. So neither removing a primarysources tag from the article nor adding primary sources to the article are appropriate: the sources need to be independent coverage in media outlets, not the WGC's own self-published content about itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * TV Junkies is also a blog, and is not "preferred" over a real media outlet like Broadcast Dialogue, such that it should be retained rather than replaced with a stronger source. The rule is, again, not "any website at all that supports the content is always a valid source" — sources have to be real media, not the WGC's own press releases or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with the source you removed. That's the point.  When you look at the winners on the WGC site, you use the categories that they have for each year.  Oh and yes, I moved the talk back here.  Keeps it all in one spot.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was everything wrong with the source, because TV Junkies is a blog (which is not an appropriate type of sourcing for use on Wikipedia), and a more appropriate and reliable media source was readily available to support the same content. And also, keeping all user talk threads in one place is not a rule: you're allowed to have personal preferences in that regard, but you are not allowed to go around criticizing other people or calling them negligent for not sharing your preference, because there simply is not, and never has been, any Wikipedia rule that user discussions always have to be conducted that way. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look; TV, eh is also a blog.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It certainly wouldn't singlehandedly carry a topic over the notability bar all by itself if it was the only sourcing a topic had, but it isn't a blog: it's an actual, albeit small fry, trade publication. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I need your help
Hello Bearcat:

I'm writing to ask for your help. I have recently been expanding the article called Ramón Nomar with content and references from the corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia. In the same way I created the article called Julian Andretti in English Wikipedia: translating into English the content of the corresponding article in Polish Wikipedia ... But recently, all my edits to improve Ramón Nomar's article were reversed by another user. That is why I ask, please, your help as an administrator: I would like to ask you to review my editions and assess if you can restore them ... The user who reverted my editions claimed to do that the references that I added were not reliable sources, but in actually most of the references I used were reliable sources, like this one. If you could help me, I will really appreciate it. Many thanks in advance.

Here I send you the link to the edition of the user who reverted my editions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1064876866 Tomas Fernando Camargo (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Presumed notability of members of subnational parliaments
Hi - I've noticed your contributions in a number of places regarding NPOL; given a number of comments I've seen over time regarding NPOL, I drafted the following table. If you have time, any thoughts, comments, reactions you have would be appreciated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover Biography, Categories
Katherine Hoover was an educator and musician. Were these categories duplicates? AjAirFlex (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I understand. Does this mean the entire category list needs to be deleted, until I submit it to replace current article? AjAirFlex (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft categories
Hi Bearcat! I noticed you take a rather strong approach to draft categories, e.g. here, removing them entirely along with stub tags etc. If there's an easy way to do it, going with Draft categories or turning the categories into links instead by adding a colon in front of them would help to preserve the content better. Hopefully the draft category thing will get a technical solution someday, where the software automatically applies Draft categories regardless of what's in the wikitext—it's rather silly that we have to handle it manually. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:katherine hoover, Thank you.
Thanks for your help. I understand now. AjAirFlex (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Review it
Hi, Bearcat Please review this article, Thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan 2409:4060:200A:F87:0:0:178F:D8A0 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Ébert
I would like to thankyou for your very well reasoned and explained nomination of Pierre Ébert. My only fear is we have way too many articles on non-notable actors and actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonny Gray Page Inconsistencies
Hi Bearcat, I noticed that on the filmography section for Jonny Gray, the film This can't be happening at Macdonald Hall is being redirect to the film series. However, closer to the top of the table is Bruno & Boots: Go Jump in the Pool and that doesn't have a redirect page. This doesn't really make sense to me because people would read Go Jump in the Pool first. I was thinking that maybe this was possibly because This can't be happening at Macdonald Hall is a more notable film? You are the more experienced editor and I am really confused so could you please clarify the explanation for this? - Bear6811 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

KVOS
If you'd like me to find additional citations for this, let me know. I do have newspapers.com access and clipped all the citations you added. I already had a few other pages clipped that I haven't yet put to use, and with the Bellingham papers in newspapers.com, there are probably plenty more available. The third ref from Landau has a humorous element in it—CKVU satirized KVOS and joked it was in "Bellingham, B.C.".

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus Ontario - IP user with the party
Hey Bearcat, I need a little help reverting some of the changes made to this article by an IP user who is (according to their edit summary) purportedly with the party. Is that something you could quickly help with? Bkissin (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dylan Marron
What picture from his Commons page should we use to illustrate the article? Ill loke your opinion--Trade (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

75.130.69.46 block
I know it's an LTA, but you just blocked a library indefinitely (btw I put the templates there). Also, IP addresses should almost never be indef blocked. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  23:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yan Li
Hi, thanks for your attention to the Yan Li article. Could you explain about your tag? I don't think any of the sources are primary sources, they're all reporting or scholarship (although some of them are institutional reporting). Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay


The article List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "non notable list"

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. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay 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/List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay 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. Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Bolero Lava
More than ten years ago, you restored Bolero Lava, and about two years later, another admin deleted it, improperly in my view because it had already been prodded. Could you please take another look at the article to see whether it should be restored? I followed a list from the list of tracks of a compilation album at the bottom of Brave New Waves. SOme of the other redlinks in Brave New Waves are probably notable as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Cable television in Canada has been nominated for renaming
Category:Cable television in Canada has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)