User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 15

Category:Trade fairs in the United States
This should not have been nominated as a speedy since it was clearly local usage which was mentioned in the discussion on the parent and local usage was to be respected. This is an example of why renaming parent categories to change the version of English can be a horrible idea! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The category description mentions both 'trade fairs' and 'trade shows', so I didn't consider it to be a matter of ENGVAR or local usage. Also, if the change from 'shows' to 'fairs' was a mistake, then it was my mistake on one category and not, I think, indicative of a problem inherent to eliminating ENGVAR inconsistencies between article and category titles. However, as the change obviously was not uncontroversial, I apologize for the extra work and fully support your proposal to restore the status quo on that category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

More of the same
There are a bunch more of those "Wikipedians who like ..." categories that have been created recently by Rich. Category:Wikipedians who like Mad Max, Category:Wikipedians who like Fletch, Category:Wikipedians who like Terms of Endearment, Category:Wikipedians who like Rocky, Category:Wikipedians who like Fletch, Category:Wikipedians who like Beetlejuice, Category:Wikipedians who like The Colbert Report .... It goes on and it's quite a substantial list. Do we just need to nominate each one individually? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I think this may call for a mass nomination, though for the time being it might be best just to group them all into one place: Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film or Category:Wikipedians by interest in a TV series‎. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

new utopia constrction start or just more fraud ?
you was in the new utopia article but suddenly quiet in the discussion page any idea what happened to new utopia ?

the offical website did say that in did start construction now maybe it should be update the wikipeida artickel but at the same time it need to update its pasport infomation... the links have not been updated too maybe its should be added in the wiki artick? l i allso found by look up new utopia citizenship or shomthing like that a investro bank in antigua get closed becuse of fraud was used to transfer fees and money by the new utopia project... one of the owner of the domain name was made bankrupt in florida fort meyers court if it get sued for fraud in florida why did the charte citizens get ther office in caymen island (that showes in the youtube video )now when caymen island can give infomation abut amricans convicted of crime ?

when many of the cariben island did give clients lists the last 5 years why did not charter citise get there mony back (if it is a fraud) becuse look like many of them(investoer/conslats/govounoers have mony offshore?

got sued ? what happen to charter citizens? Investors’ did sue them for fraud and made the project somewhere else ? because all the business /project did stop in 2007/2008 and the site did move to flordia then to uk (just look it the dictionary that was the domain name )

sorry for my bad enghlis

murakami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Well, this is a pleasant surprise to which to return. :) Thank you! -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion: current deletion discussion
Hello Black Falcon,

the article about the Favorite betrayal criterion is marked for deletion. I saw that you participated in an older version of the discussion. Please join the discussion to enrich it for the best possible result: Articles_for_deletion/Favorite_betrayal_criterion_(5th_nomination)

Best wishes, --Arno Nymus (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not responding sooner. I see that the nomination already has closed, but I thank you for notifying me. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --Arno Nymus (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CfD
Thanks, I appreciate that. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) The speedy renaming page can be rather crowded and it's fairly easy for a nomination to get lost among all the clutter, so I thought a quick notice would be prudent. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You may want to see this
I see you have undone quite a few revisions by MiszaBot III with an edit summary stating - “too soon to archive”.
 * Perceived issue
 * My Suggestion
 * DNAU may come in handy at times.
 * In the section |algo = old(14d), you may increase the value by changing the number 14d→30d.

I know this might be a non-issue to such an experienced user like you, but just in case you needed the info. I hope this helps. Brendon is here  20:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It does, thank you! Face-grin.svg I did not know about DNAU, or that it was possible to delay archiving in this manner, and I'm sure that it will prove to be a handy tool. It is certainly more efficient than updating datestamps on a regular basis. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that I could help a little, I know it's not much. Brendon is  here  10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You missed out
There was a party recently and they had me over for dinner : ) - jc37 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you were into masochism... :P


 * In all seriousness, though, kudos for offering yourself to the role. If the numbers are any indication – 55 ArbCom members and 47 bureaucrats – it's easier to be elected to ArbCom than to become a bureaucrat, despite the former being a more public and controversial role. In the past few years, especially, RfB has become such a gauntlet that only two people applied last year, down from six in 2010, ten in 2009 and twenty in 2008.


 * Incidentally, I've been coming the WT:CAT archives for past discussions about some of the idea I'd like to propose there, and there's one I can't seem to find. Didn't you, sometime this year, initiate a discussion about template categories and how they shouldn't (as I recall) be placed in content categories? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was really recent. I really did miss out... -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just closed. Supporters were still trickling in, but it was fairly stable at 75/76 for several days.
 * Well, part of the problem is the presumption that 85 or higher is needed. Once upon a time a request for bureacratship could include checkuser. So back then, the high thresh hold made sense. Now? I dunno.


 * Not sure which discussion you're referring to, but the only thing I can think of around that topic was Alan L feeling that non articles were not allowed in article cats, and I pointed out WP:SORTKEY.
 * Should I ask about the idea? or would you rather wait til it was rdy for primetime?


 * And (poke) speaking of WP:CAT... lol it's now been stable awhile. Ever get around to your thoughts? - jc37 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the one: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 14. I found it once you mentioned Alan L, though apparently my memory had deceived me with regard to your position on the matter. :)


 * Yes, I have, and I'm going to post it now. It's taking me much too long to organize my ideas and, technically, they can come later since they're proposed changes to current practice and separate from the re-organization undertaken by you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category Monmouth, Wales
This is probably the first time I have opposed a speedy category rename, so I am seeking advice from you about what is likely to happen next. If a regular rename, rather than a speedy one, follows, will I be informed? Is this somewhat like the AfD process, where there will be a discussion, long or short, and a decision by an Administrator? --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless someone who supports the proposed change initiates a regular CFD discussion, the nomination eventually will be removed (and the category untagged) by an administrator. In effect, opposed speedy renames are rejected by default unless someone is willing to pursue a full nomination.
 * If a regular CFD discussion is started, a link to the discussion will be posted at WP:CFD/S but individual editors may or may not be notified. Since the speedy page is perpetually on my watchlist, I can (if you'd like) notify you if that happens.
 * I hope this helps. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that helps. Tell me if there is a regular CfD. Incidentally, thank you for your good work on these requests. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the regular CfD, but I do not understand the process. The comments are from the speedy deletion nomination, and there don't seem to be any more. All the comments say Oppose so it would seem to me that an Administrator could easily close this process without a rename. Am I missing something? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the likely outcome, since most editors agree that Category:Monmouth would be ambiguous. Discussions are generally left open for 7 days, so that one should be closed within the next day or two. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets
I've responded to your nomination to delete Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets by adding my comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Note that I have no problem changing the grammar and construction of the title if there is some Wikipedia policy that applies here? Hopefully the issues you raise have been adequately addressed and the pink box "Nominated for deletion" may be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting at the discussion. I will read and respond to your comment at the earliest opportunity. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CAT
You know, I think I'm going to look over WP:CAT (and other category-related pages) and see about a reOrg. There are some things which could use a bit of clarity, plus just to make the page easier to read would be a plus. - jc37 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Categories.
 * Well, that was a bit more work than I expected. lol
 * And I think that the text definitely could be clearer in sections.
 * But it's much clearer now, I think.
 * Please let me know what you think. - jc37 04:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was on holiday for the past two weeks, and I'll take a look at the first opportunity. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, welcome back, I hope you enjoyed the holiday : ) - jc37 04:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my return didn't last long... too much work. :) I promise to take a look this weekend. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds great (smile) been there myself. - jc37 17:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. :) I'm currently writing and collecting my thoughts, as well as formulating a few categorization-related ideas that I'd like to run by you, if you'd be interested. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, sure. You know me, glad to try to help : ) - jc37 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for putting it off so much...

Overall, I think that the page is more clearly and logically organized, and more accessible, than it was before: roughly the same amount of content – taking into account the redundancies that you cut (e.g. here and here), the sections that you merged (e.g. here) and the newly transclused Categorization/Naming – is covered in fewer and better-organized sections.


 * I fully support your decision to transclude Categorization/Naming. WP:CAT's focus primarily was on how to categorize content within existing categories, but category creation and naming is an important step in the categorization process as a whole.
 * A key change took place here, where you changed "every Wikipedia article" to "every Wikipedia page". I agree with the principle and believe that it reflects current practice, but this follow-up edit does not cover all exceptions: in addition to talk pages, redirects and user pages, most project-namespace pages (e.g., XfDs) and all (I think) MediaWiki-namespace pages are not categorized. I'm not sure how that could be indicated without going into excessive detail.

The main gap in the guideline is the absence of a section about eponymous categories, which you removed with these two edits in order to initiate a discussion on the talk page. Of course, it's hard to know what to include without knowing what the consensus is on:


 * 1) When an eponymous category is necessary or useful;
 * 2) How an eponymous category should, itself, be categorized;
 * 3) Whether an article placed in an eponymous category should be added to other categories; and so on.

Still, I think that the section (or part of it) should be restored even while it is being discussed, so that editors will at least know what's being referred to.

Further, the section 'Categorizing pages' might benefit from information, or links to information, about categorizing templates – such as advice about placement and technical information such as the use of tags; see Help:Template and Template documentation, though the latter's advice to place categories in the /doc page rather than the template pages doesn't reflect common practice – and Wikipedia-Books.

I've cut a few portions of this comment, which I'd been working on over the last few days, that relate to the ideas I've been considering. I promise to bug you about them soon :) One of them has to do with the content and organization of category descriptions, so I think that Alan L's proposed MOS for category pages will be my next destination. Before I do that, however, I'll make another pass through WP:CAT to see if any other ideas come to me.

On the whole, I commend you for a job well done! Also, I found Categorization/Noticeboard during the course of my checking, and I think that a categorization noticeboard is a great idea. There've been many times that I've wanted to ask a categorization-related question without initiating a nomination; so far, I've relied mostly on WikiProjects for advice, but it will be nice to be able to get the perspective of editors with a specialization, in a manner of speaking, in categorization-related issues. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, ok. Thank you for the detailed analysis. I appreciate it.
 * Let me see if I can respond to each in kind.


 * Because this page is essentially the main page concerning categories, I felt it needed to be clearer about all categorisation, not just articles. This had already happened by others, so it was merely a question of changing "article" to "page" for those things which affected all categorisations.
 * I agree that there are exceptions, particularly in project-space (Though I repeatedly find images (File space) that are not categorised. I will honestly say I have no clue what common practice is or should be there.) I'll see if i can clarify it any better on the page.
 * We could probably just copy the technical info from WP:USERCAT, however I'm hesitant because so many templates have become rather advanced when it comes to templates. infoboxes (and userboxes) in particular, especially through multi-level transclusions.


 * And yes categorising through cat desciptions is (or at least AFAIK should be) common practice. This was something which (I believe) was from the devs, and happened due to attempting to reduce the overhead. This should indeed probably be noted.


 * I moved the section on Eponymous cats because it had notes on the page disputing it. And of course, as you know, this has been a contentional subject for some time (much of which was hopefully finally dealt with by marking certain kinds to "hidden"). I really don't have much of an opinion on the section itself, so i didn't comment there. But we can try to take up the discussion if you like. But, though I understand your concerns, until we figure out what actually does have consensus, we probably shouldn't re-add it to the page. (Though I'm not strongly opposed, obviously.)


 * I remember you starting a couple discussions regarding content and some "helpful" templates, etc. I was thinking of that when I merged the section on creating category pages. that section obviously could use more than a bit of expansion. and would seem to be much of what Alan is concerned about in his MoS/CAT.


 * I did a fair amount of work on WikiProject Comics/Notice board (though that page changed even more since then due to some new XfD bot reporters). And the noticeboard works rather well. I looked at how many category talk pages we have (See template:User Cattalk), not to mention various cat-related (or CFD-regulars-related) RfCs and the like, and thought that a unifying noticeboard would probably be a very good thing.  Now the trick is to help people become more aware of it. In the end probably more top-of-the-page clutter or a navbox version of template:User Catbox maybe.


 * In the ReOrg I didn't do much to expand what was already there. And (as you note) there are definitely places for expansion and clean up. My next plan is to take a closer look at the names section. That's a lot of examples. (sortkey is another such section.) And one thing I tried hard to do was to reduce/combine bullet points on the page to try to minimise the wallpapering effect.


 * And thanks again. there's a fair amount of food for thought : ) - jc37 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes sense. As I hinted above, I think that you achieved your goal: the guideline is noticeably more structured and less repetitive.
 * By the way, I see that the 'Eponymous categories' section was restored while its content still is under discussion (sort of...) and the 'Files/images' section has been rewritten and expanded. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Arabic)
I may well reverse my 'vote' on the RM, I just wanted to see informed input related to the MOS. I would like to see more reference/adherence to a consistent MOS in general on wp. Apart from contributing a couple of articles on Andalusi musicians, my own knowledge of Arabic falls below working usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. It is better to make the one-time investment of time needed to agree upon a single, consistent standard than to hold separate discussions for every article. I have responded in more detail at the RM discussion. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia the musical
This just looks like some school kids having some playtime fun on Wikipedia. Haven't seen anything "bad" so far, but it might be worth watching them in case of possible future meatpuppetry.
 * focused contribution history

I've reverted User:Brambleberry of RiverClan's WikiFauna edits, as they were contrary to this XfD (among others). - jc37 17:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Left note for the editor here. - jc37 17:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He or she appears to be responsive. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent speedy cat nom
In the past couple of days you nominated Category:Red Bull Salzburg to Category:FC Red Bull Salzburg for speedy rename per C2.D. Had I noticed (instead of after the bot-assisted execution), I would have opposed on the grounds that it's inappropriate; the category is a master cat for both the FC and the EC (the Red Bull-owned, Salzburg-based hockey club). That's why the "FC" was omitted from the cat name, as it is the cat to contain articles on both both closely affiliated clubs; both FC Red Bull Salzburg and EC Red Bull Salzburg are in the category (as are subcategories) and neither are the single main article for the cat. As such, I request that you move the category back to it's original and proper name. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out and clarifying this issue. I have nominated the category here and your participation would be most welcome. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Black Falcon
I understand your position stated at the Cfd and why you reverted the tagging through the stub template. I would like to offer that in numerous examples the "stub" article is specifically exempt from the standard being discussed. I may have misinterpreted something, but I understood that stub tagging, through a template was allowed on an article page provided it was hidden. It however is not a big deal and we can work around the current embargo. It just doesn't seem productive to prevent the tagging as a record production stub from efficiently appearing on a projects list. My76Strat (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've offered additional details at the category discussion regarding the category structure. Concerning the stub template, you're correct that stub tagging on article pages is allowed, but the attachment of a WikiProject category to a stub template is discouraged. Template:Record-producer-stub and the country-specific templates for the United Kingdom (UK-record-producer-stub) and the United States (US-record-producer-stub) are used on just under 500 pages. The quickest way to identify them as being within the scope of the WikiProject, without categorizing the articles directly, would be to request automated tagging of the talk pages of those articles with . It is also possible, for example, to request similar tagging of all talk pages of articles in Category:Record producers by nationality and its subcategories. I've helped to establish WikiProject structures before, so I'd be happy to offer my assistance: I can help to complete the 'standard' structure (the fact is, you've mostly done it already) and to set up any particular, non-standard tracking or organizational systems that would prove useful. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Metrolink category
 Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  11:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tech questions
Black Falcon,

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Lots of questions in case you have any tips.

What tools are used to get subjects classified and organized? I miss having a controlled vocabulary and thesaurus inside specific subjects (including stuff like broader term, narrower term, used for, see also...) Is there such a concept as subject mater experts?

Any great top down or bottom up tools that help with classification, and reclassification? Keeping things organized?

Auto examining text and finding all the standing articles based on the text entities so they can be automatically cross referenced?

Any tool to list the articles a specific user has originated. (would like this for myself too). Is there a way to filter new pages by user?

When you change a category page title, does it automatically change each regular article that is tagged to that category? Or do you have to go to each page and manually change the category title?

I see you cover politics. Can WikiPedia keep lists of senators? senator staffs? Committee assignments? (XML?)

Is there any WikiPedia for People that can show people, Wikipedia article pages on people and social & business networking links?

Any pointers very much appreciated.

Rick (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ooops one more. How do I repeat using the same cite in the main text. Rick (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd be glad to point you toward some resources and I'll post a detailed response to your questions tonight. In response to your last question, about using the same citation more than once within an article, that can be accomplished by using 'ref naming'. In essence, you assign a name to your citation and, when you use it subequently, you refer to the assigned name. For example:
 * First sentence. Second sentence. Third sentence.
 * The citation for the third sentence (note the final slash) automatically calls the reference named "Smith, 2000". See Help:Footnotes for additional details and an article such as Nie Fengzhi for multiple examples. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks! Rick (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was delayed a bit, but here we go:


 * What tools are used to get subjects classified and organized?
 * There main tools used to facilitate navigation between related articles are categories, lists and navigation templates. Each has its advantages, disadvantages and unique guidelines, and there are times when they should be used in conjunction and other times when one is uniquely suited to a particular purpose. See Categorization, Manual of Style/Lists, and Navigation templates for the primary guidelines concerning each tool.


 * I miss having a controlled vocabulary and thesaurus inside specific subjects (including stuff like broader term, narrower term, used for, see also...).
 * Do you mean something like Glossary? It is a long document, however, so you may wish to search by topic (e.g., search for instances of the word "category").


 * Is there such a concept as subject mater experts?
 * There is not, as far as I know, an organized system of subject-matter experts. Most topics fall under the scope of one or more WikiProjects, which consist of editors who have expressed an interest in the topic but not necessarily expertise. There is also a maintenance tag that is used to request attention by such experts: it is Expert-subject and it is used to populate subcategories of Category:Articles needing expert attention.


 * Any great top down or bottom up tools that help with classification, and reclassification? Keeping things organized?
 * Could you clarify what you have in mind? There are some tools, such as CatScan and HotCat, that help with categorization, but of course they require user input and knowledge of the category system to operate.


 * Auto examining text and finding all the standing articles based on the text entities so they can be automatically cross referenced?
 * If I've understood your meaning, then closest thing of which I can think is Advanced Search.


 * Any tool to list the articles a specific user has originated.
 * Yes, see here. Simply specify the username, the namespace and whether or not to include redirects.


 * Is there a way to filter new pages by user?
 * I do not know of one.


 * When you change a category page title, does it automatically change each regular article that is tagged to that category? Or do you have to go to each page and manually change the category title?
 * The latter. In most cases, it is best to use the standard category renaming process or, if the change meets certain criteria, the speedy renaming process. If there is consensus for the change, then an administrator will prompt a bot to perform the change automatically.


 * Can WikiPedia keep lists of senators? senator staffs? Committee assignments? (XML?)
 * Yes, see for example the contents of Category:Lists of United States Senators. One factor to keep in mind, however, is that such lists should be of people who meet the notability criteria for inclusion. For example, a list of staffers who do not meet the criteria and do not have articles would not be suitable. The lists are written using wiki markup, which is basically a simplified variation of HTML.


 * Is there any WikiPedia for People that can show people, Wikipedia article pages on people and social & business networking links?
 * Such wikis may exist but the placement into articles of social and business networking links is, though not prohibited, quite heavily restricted (see External links).


 * I hope this helps. :) And please don't hesitate to ask any other questions that you might have. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject recognition
Thank you. I was happy to help and your gesture is much appreciated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:High school national record holder
Following your closure of the discussion for Category:High school national record holder, a new category was created that seems to overlap perfectly with the other: Category:American high school record holders. What do you think: is this a clear-cut case of a "sufficiently identical and unimproved" recreation? The title is improved (though still ambiguous) but the problems of defining-ness and published-list overcategorization remain. I don't mind starting a new discussion if you think that'd be best. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear recreation contrary to a close. And obviously was aware of the discussion per their edit here.
 * It should be deleted as G4.
 * Once that's done/resolved, I have no opposition to a new discussion. - jc37 19:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Black Falcon,

Thanks for help deleting Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets was trying to make a redirect but I can now see the problems that creates!

Thanks for putting up with us newbies!

Rick (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue of 'putting up with', I assure you. :) I'm happy to help where I can. Cheers! -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your helpful comments at the category's discussion.

Firebreak
I so, so, SO, SO know the feeling.
 * diff

There are days I so miss Kbdank's (and others') sense of humour in these times. - jc37 05:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As do I. CfD seems somewhat more ... mechanical ... due to his absence, not to mention that it's usually backlogged up the wazoo—figuratively or literally, it doesn't make for a pretty sight.


 * Still, I'm glad that at least a few familiar faces remain. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

CfD
As you may (or may not) have noticed, I've been *cough* "somewhat" distracted of late.

If there is anything at CfD (or anywhere else for that matter) you think I should particularly check out, please let me know : ) - jc37 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been in much the same situation. Over the past few days, I've been editing rather sporadically and have failed even to keep up with my watchlist.


 * Well, there's a 19-day backlog if you have time to kill. :) Other than that, you might be interested in and/or your input might be helpful at:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 27
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 30
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 1
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2
 * I'd be grateful, also, if you would have a look at this discussion, which is related to my recent question to you.


 * There's also an RfC, which I haven't yet had time to look into, about the wording of the verifiability policy.


 * Lastly, I wanted to ask your opinion about Category:Wikipedians by religion. This issue came up in a recent and ongoing discussion: is the Fooian Wikipedians convention really the best—e.g. Category:Christian Wikipedians? Should it be changed in some way so that the title starts with 'Wikipedian', such as Category:Wikipedian Christians, Category:Wikipedian adherents to Christianity, Category:Wikipedian followers of Christianity, or some Wikipedians who... variant? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kinda saw you were busy, so no worries about missing my comments here : )
 * Now that it's over (and feel free to comment in a separate thread at your leisure, and obviously when you have more time), what did you think of the recent proposal?
 * CfD - Working my way through, though quite a few I've already commented at. And I added some comments as well. Check out June 6, for example.
 * I commented there. I'll take a look at the nom.
 * Look at the top of that RfC to see who *cough* volunteered to help close...
 * Wikipedians by religion - I'll need to look over that cat (and its subcats), haven't given it a thorough look in quite a while.
 * (Did I cover everything? lol - and if there's anything else, please add to this list, it looks like I have several hours of semi-free time today : ) - jc37 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, would you look at that! :) I don't envy you the task of helping to close (co-closing?) an RfC of that length.
 * Thanks for taking care of the record-holders category; for Category:Wikipedians by religion, take your time please and have a look if/whenever you have a chance.
 * Regarding your recent user-rights proposal, I'm sorry to say I didn't know about it (I hadd removed the Village Pumps from my watchlist). It'll take me a while to read it, so... rain check? I see, though, that you withdrew it and intend to repropose a revised version. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was on the watchlist notice for a couple days, and I had a couple big banners on my user and talk pages : )
 * And nod, it was turning into a confused trainwreck. See what happens when you're not around to help out? lol
 * I did receive some very nice comments, both from those in support and opposition.
 * And now back to sifting through the backlog. I've responded to a few of your comments. (and if you respond, I likely will again lol). - jc37 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Italian American vs. Italian-American
Hello, I would like my page turned back to List of Italian American Women Writers. We purposefully do not hyphenate. How can I change this back please?Srdemuro (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Italian American article on Wiki is the way that Italian Americans like to identify typically in the academic world. Srdemuro (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To move an article, please see Moving a page. That being said, it's not an issue of typical identification so much as, I think, one of grammatical correctness. In the article Italian American, the phrase correctly is not hyphenated: one should not hyphenate statements such as "an Italian American is..." or "Italian Americans are...". However, in the phrase "Italian-American women", the identifier functions as a compound modifier, which generally should be hyphenated. For comparison, see Lists of African Americans (unhyphenated) and List of African-American astronauts (hyphenated). -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy renaming of a category
Hello!It is me who is behind all these problems. I foolishly created a category with a name ending in full stop. The category is associated with a banner - WikiProject Polymers. The category name is Polymers articles needing molecular structures .(Note that fullstop hanging at the end.) So it is to be renamed to Polymers articles needing molecular structures and this should be updated on the template. I am not listing it WP:Categories for discussion because this is associated only with the template and hence it is to be edited. No articles are to be edited. Also this is not important enough to be a speedy rename, I suppose. Shall I list it there? Also, is it possible to rename it with no redirects from this former name? Can you help me? V ani s che nu mTalk 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help. :)
 * As you say, the issue is straightforward enough not to require any additional waiting or processing, so I've gone ahead and &#x2713; Done the change. See Category:Polymers articles needing molecular structures. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I really appreciate your great kindness. V ani s che nu mTalk 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
(regarding Trucks, Champions and ASA) The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

 * Thanks! :) WikiLove is always appreciated, and it has come in one of my two favorite car colors: black (silver being the other). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan
Hi, I was just looking at Category:Buildings and structures in Whitewood, Saskatchewan when you closed the CFD, so I have implemented it. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that. :) We had a bit of overlap, but no harm done. Thanks for taking care of the implementation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

MotD Nomination for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics (27 July 2012)
We at the Motto of the Day would be extremely grateful if you could review a couple of "special" nominations for the Opening Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics on the 27th of July 2012. Here is the link to the first nomination, if you can help. The others follow it, and you can add your own ones or improve the existing nominations, of course. Thank you so very much in advance! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Flag_image_galleries
Ping : ) - jc37 02:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_10
 * Quite a few links. :) Nice research, I'll peruse the linked pages and reply tomorrow. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See also: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_4. - jc37 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to reconsider CFD closing
Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2 was closed by you as delete all. I believe the discussion did not warrant that closing result as there simply was an insufficient consensus for this conclusion. I would ask that you either close as no consensus or relist the discussion. __meco (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting the discussion was not a suitable option, since there was sufficient substantive debate among a sufficient number of participants (ten, to be precise) for a sufficient period of time (19 days) in order to evaluate whether a consensus existed. In reviewing the offered comments and arguments, I do believe that there was a consensus to delete—even more so when one takes into account the previous discussion about a similar category scheme.


 * The main arguments offered, by User:JASpencer, yourself and User:Władysław Komorek, in support of keeping the category were:
 * shared dedication is more significant than shared naming and is defining;
 * several other Wikipedia projects employ this categorization scheme; and
 * dedication reflects a "principle of faith" in Catholicism ( (User:Władysław Komorek, 17:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) ).
 * I did not give much weight to the second and third arguments since the English Wikipedia does not share categorization guidelines with other Wikipedias and, as User:Johnpacklambert noted, this category scheme is not limited to the Catholic Church and should not, therefore, be based solely or primarily on Catholic practices and principles. The first argument, pertaining to the significance of shared dedication, might have been convincing if it had been supported by evidence or at least a well-formed explanation. As it stands, however, it was asserted without clear justification.


 * The main arguments offered, by User:Good Olfactory, User:Beeswaxcandle, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Jc37, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Mangoe and User:Peterkingiron, in support of deleting the category were:
 * shared dedication is analogous to shared naming, which is considered to be "trivial association" ( User:Peterkingiron, 12:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC) );
 * the category scheme would, if completed, become unmanageable; and
 * there is a high potential of miscategorization due to complexities in distinguishing patronage, dedication and/or naming.
 * I did not give much weight to the second argument as it was based, at least partly, in conjecture and we do accept other heavily populated category schemes. The third argument identified a problem that is definitely concerning but, in principle, fixable, so it was not decisive. The first argument, that categorization of churches by dedication amounts to trivial association, was rooted in established categorization guidelines (specifically, WP:OCAT) and supported by the reasoning that the category scheme would group together "churches from multiple religious traditions" ( (User:Johnpacklambert, 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC) ) on the basis of a characteristic that is not defining (as asserted by those arguing to delete) or that may or may not be defining "depending on demonation" (as asserted by you).


 * Therefore, I considered the arguments to delete to be stronger, on balance, and more firmly rooted in accepted categorization guidelines, than the arguments to keep. If you believe that my reasoning was flawed, I would be glad to hear your ideas of how or why; if we are unable to come to an agreement, you can of course initiate a deletion review at any time in order to request additional community input.


 * Separate from the categorization issue, I would like to highlight the suggestion made by a few participants in the discussion to create and develop, possibly in cooperation with WikiProject Christianity, stand-alone lists of churches by dedication. It would be a way to preserve the information outside the scope of categorization guidelines, though of course one would need to consider relevant list guidelines.


 * Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the consensus principle govern these discussions? Above you recapitulate the arguments from the opposing factions, and I must say that even looking at the way you present this, it does look like both sides have given considered and valid reasons for their opinions. As you have assessed these you have found one side to be more convincing and have aligned yourself accordingly. To me, this way of approaching the closing procedure resembles more a weighting or tipping of scales, which would seem quite contrary to consensus-based decision making. The latter would call for a substantial middle ground of no consensus, which defaults to the status quo. Do you disagree with any of this, in particular the last part about the principles for these types of discussions? __meco (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus principle does govern deletion discussions (most discussions, actually); however, a discussion need not achieve unanimity in order for consensus to be reached, and neither does the existence of a majority (as in this case, where 7 of 10 supported deletion) automatically imply that consensus has been reached.


 * Ideally, in order to determine consensus a closer will examine the offered arguments and evidence, assigning to them weight in accordance with their quality and the extent to which they are supported by existing guidelines and policies. Consensus hinges upon the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". So, it is not that I have found one side's arguments to be more convincing and aligned myself thus, but rather that one set of arguments have a firmer foundation in established categorization guidelines than the other. Arguments were advanced in support of both positions but those on the 'keep' side either were not grounded in existing guidelines (the argument that other Wikipedia projects implement this category scheme), were successfully rebutted (the argument presented solely from the perspective of Catholicism, despite the fact that this was a multi-denominational category scheme), or were asserted—and, naturally, challenged—with little or no explanation or evidence (the argument that dedication is defining and, by extension, that shared dedication is a significant association).


 * A closer should evaluate the offered arguments against guidelines and policies, as well as for factual accuracy (e.g., a claim that a 50-member category category is too small to keep should receive little or no weight). What a closer should not do is to arrive at a decision by utilizing information or arguments that were not offered in the discussion. For example, I could have comfortably closed this discussion as keep but chose to comment instead because I wished to contribute new information. In the 2 July discussion, I examined the offered reasons and applied my understanding of the categorization guidelines (primarily Overcategorization but also Categorization) as they are written currently, without introducing or considering any new arguments or information.


 * I hope that my reply, the length of which admittedly escaped my control, clarifies my thinking. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it did. I will ponder the situation and nominate at DRV if I land on that. __meco (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If there's anything else you'd like to ask, please feel free. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RRA
Per your standing request to let you know about "stuff" : )
 * WP:RRA

I look forward to your thoughts : ) - jc37 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it.
 * It might not come as a surprise, given my on-and-off presence these last few months, that I had missed the discussions (which you've linked at WT:RRA) that preceded this proposal. :) So, it may take some time but I'll review them and comment. At first glance, your proposal seems to address most of the issues which have led me to oppose similar proposals in the past (WP:CDA comes to mind). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

wher to look for new utopia
if you want to find out if new utopia are real i think this stuff form 2004 is intreisntg found in a archive website abut new utopia btw is it 2 competing things now ? prinscepalty of new utopia and new utopia.com ?

A message from Dale C. Harris President and CEO of Dallas Global We invite all those individuals and companies desiring to participate in New Utopia or be included in the 20-year Master Plan to contact me at Dallas Global via email.

Dallas Global Project Directory Primary Developer Dale C. Harris, President and CEO Dallas Global Development Corporation Two Galleria Tower 13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 972.774.4470 972.851.7868 Fax hbfs.com@verizon.net Master Planners and Architects Tom Pegram Pegram Associates, Inc. Architects & Planners 1131B 48th Avenue North P.O. Drawer 7448 (29572) Live Oak Station Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 843.449.5202 843.497.2635 Fax tpegram@sc.rr.com

Structural Engineers Frank W. Neal, P.E. Frank W. Neal & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 1015 West Broadway Fort Worth, TX 76104 817.332.1944 817.336.8620 Fax fneal@fwna-eng.com www.fwna-eng.com Geotechnical, Soils, Materials, & Environmental Engineers Chester J. Drash, Jr., P.E. Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6911 Blanco Road San Antonio, TX 78216 210.641.2112 800.332.1728 210.558.7894 Fax cdrash@draschce.com www.draschce.com Primary Contractor Curtis R. Ferguson, Senior VP Manhattan Construction Company 2120 Montrose Boulevard Houston, TX 77006 713.529.0000 713.526.9176 Fax cferguson@mccmail.com www.mccbuilds.com Country Club and Golf Course Designer and Manager Kenneth G. Moss Ken Moss Company Route 2, Box 145C Mexia, TX 76667 254.472.0963 903.388.1115 Cell KengMoss@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.189 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be quite a bit of information about the claimed plan for New Utopia and the SEC case – for example, this New York Times piece from 1998 – but reliable information about the project's current claimed and/or legal status is difficult to locate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

hmm did find this http://www.lakexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Scan04701.pdf

this are indepent but do it prove that its a fraud and they get sued? the other comapny goot closed dowen peobely the dallas devlopmen coperation (that was supoed to have a devlopment plan that are link to in wikipeadia was lots licneces from nevda bussis  archive (just dale c harris and the mname of the comapny...)

and this http://www.lakexposed.com/?page_id=1343

are this any intresting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Some things to consider

 * Category:Wikipedians open to poking
 * Category:Wikipedians open to the Grumpy award
 * Category:Wikipedians in the WikiFun Police
 * Category:Wikipedians having fun
 * Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians
 * Category:Users Who Sleep In Their Underwear


 * Category:Wikipedians who support paid editing
 * Category:Wikipedians who will edit for pay
 * Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free


 * Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites


 * Category:Wikipedian WikiCats
 * Category:Wikipedian WikiChefs
 * Category:WikiDragons
 * Category:WikiElves
 * Category:Wikipedian WikiJanitors
 * Category:WikiNomad
 * Category:WikiOgres
 * Category:WikiPumas


 * Category:Wikipedian Santiago de Compostela Pilgrims
 * Category:User QQ


 * Category:Wikipedians who create userboxes
 * Category:Wikipedia users who received an invite to edit Wikipedia
 * Category:Wikipedian accessibility advocates
 * Category:Wikipedia WikiCup Participants


 * Category:Wikipedians in the Vandalism Control Network


 * Category:Wikigraphist

What do you think? - jc37 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fine with "Wikipedian" before a noun and "Wikipedians" without another noun. So I would change some of these to:


 * Category:Wikipedians who sleep in their underwear (actually, I would delete that, but for formatting's sake,,,)

I'm fine with "User (X)," since that's a shorthand used in many categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons, Category:Wikipedian WikiElves, Category:Wikipedian WikiNomads, Category:Wikipedian WikiOgres, Category:Wikipedian WikiPumas, Category:Wikipedian Wikigraphists
 * Category:Wikipedians who received an invite to edit Wikipedia
 * Category:Wikipedian WikiCup Participants

A few of these are clear candidates for deletion and some are borderline recreations of previously deleted categories. Some, such as Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites, have a longer history and may be more controversial. I'll have a more thorough look at the categories, as well as any applicable precedents, tomorrow morning (UTC time). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like a purge is in order. Get a full time job and Diablo 3, and categories like these start popping up.  It seems like 2 appear for every one deleted...it's going to take quite a bit of work to get the user cat system looking good again. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I "dealt" with 3 of them that were recreations. There might be more G4-elligible ones I missed.  We could always use this time to add to Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/Discussion_history which severely needs updating, let alone adding back all the old ones. VegaDark (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here goes: More in a little while. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I emptied Category:Wikipedians open to poking by editing Pokeme, since editing a template (even one that populates a category) does not require a CFD, but a user re-added h(im/er)self manually.
 * Category:Wikipedians open to the Grumpy award is populated by Grump. I can't think of any reason for the template to populate this category.
 * I moved Category:Wikipedians in the WikiFun Police to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. Due to the fact that the project page contains contradicting statements, it's not clear to me whether WP:WFP is an actual collaboration or a humor page. By the way, there is a separate list of members.
 * I attempted to empty Category:Wikipedians having fun by editing Wfun, but there's one page left.
 * Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians was nominated for deletion in December and kept.
 * I emptied Category:Wikipedians willing to write articles for free (populated by User volunteer) per Overcategorization/User categories and started CFDs for Category:Users Who Sleep In Their Underwear and Category:Wikipedians having fun. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was repopulated and I've started a full discussion for it here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of these were recently nominated by me. It appears as if I forgot a few, I'll have to nominate them in the next round. VegaDark (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Programmes vs Shows in Canada
Regarding your comment at CFDS: The parent WikiProject is "WikiProject Canadian TV shows", so... I'll ping them, but they appear to be semi-active; if I don't hear back from them in a week or so I'll just send the lot to CFD to discuss whether "programme" (which is the correct engvar, I think) or "show" should be used for the whole lot. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB
Thought you might appreciate this : ) - jc37 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Happy-melon


 * I'm happy to help, too, if you'd like. There are just a few steps needed to form a basic understanding of AWB's functions: list generation and filtering; automatic changes and typo fixing; replacement (of text, files or categories); tagging; disambiguation; and previewing and saving. The program has more advanced functions but the ones I mentioned will suffice for most tasks. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as I haven't been connecting up with happy...lol
 * (old habit - he was one of those who I would go to to ask complex technical questions in the past : )
 * Atm, I need to try to get user:jc377 (I've forgotten the password) - I've asked at VP/T and wt:awb, but haven't pursued the suggestions yet. Unless a sysadmin smiles at me, it sounds like I'll be begging at BN in the near future : ) - jc37 18:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try, tonight, to write short descriptions of the key elements so that you can begin to navigate AWB's user interface and ask any questions that arise. As for the user account, contacting a sysadmin might be the 'cleaner' option but it will probably be more time-consuming. Still, since you confirmed the account's status as an alternate account while editing from User:Jc377, you should be able to regain access to it one way or the other. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My next step: Try to figure out how to contact a sysadmin : ) - jc37 19:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ta-da! : )
 * Ready when you are : ) - Jc377 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I read everything at WP:AWB. (In my opinion, the manual is written from the POV of someone who has used AWB before, not from a newbie's POV.)
 * I figured out how to make a list (copy/paste to a small window). And hit start. Was glad to see that my trial and error (so far) didn't break anything : )
 * I just ran it looking for "general fixes". I went through my watchlist (was a fun blast from the past - amazing all the things we have on our watchlists), and then I found that I could click on the "random article" button several times and get a list of random pages to go through.
 * But beyond this, no idea lol
 * I wish that I could set it to fix the article alerts, or at least show them in diffs, rather than some weird click option. (Also, they're rather scrunched in a small section.) I wish I could resize the list box - some names, list names in particular, are too long to see the whole name.
 * Anyway, what now? I have watched you and hiding and kbdank and others do all sorts of things with awb. I see lots of options, but either I'm not understanding the text, else I'm not understanding how you all accomplished the stuff you did.
 * Help would be welcome : ) - jc37 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neat! Well, let's start with the general overview and then proceed to some specific tasks. I'll write a condensed step-by-step summary now. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll post what I have to write in separate sections, so that you can ask any questions or we can discuss them in more detail. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer questions up here or after each section? : ) - jc37 22:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I completely missed your comment... I'm sorry about that. I'll resume writing the rest of the sections tonight.
 * Either place would be fine... so, whichever you prefer. :)
 * Again, sorry. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List generation and filtering
There are many ways to generate a list of pages in AWB but almost all involve the 'Make list' panel on the bottom left. To generate a list, it is necessary to specify the source of the query: the most common sources, in my experience, are:


 * 'Category' - generates a list of all pages that a category contains directly (i.e., not through any subcategories).


 * 'Category (recurse user defined level) - generates a list of all pages contained by a category directly and opens subcategories according to the level defined. For instance, specifying "level 1" will list all pages that a category contains directly and all pages that its immediate subcategories contain directly; specifying "level 2" will list the previous, as well as pages that appear within subcategories of the subcategories; and so on.


 * Specifying a high recursion level for a large category may freeze your browser. For instance, requesting level-10 recursion on Category:American people will almost certainly do that, since the resulting list would consist of tens of thousands of pages.


 * 'Links on page' - generates a list of all links (it is possible to specify only blue or red links) on a page.
 * This can be used to, among other things, generate a list of pages to be tagged for a mass nomination. Example.


 * 'Special page' - generates a list based on the desired special page, such as Special:PrefixIndex.
 * To generate the list, you would enter the text that would appear after the forward slash:.


 * 'What links here' - a specialized case of the above, for Special:WhatLinksHere, with variants that include or exclude non-mainspace pages and redirects.
 * 'What transcludes page' - generates a list of all pages that transclude the specified page (not necessarily a template).
 * This is useful in a number of situations–in particular, template replacement or removal.

There are a number of other sources detailed here.

Once you have generated a list, you can filter it by clicking the 'Filter' button that is present below the list or by accessing the 'List' menu at the top. Filtering options include alphabetical sorting, removal of duplicates, exclusion of pages in particular namespaces (e.g., excluding all except category-namespace pages), and filtering based on title text (e.g., keeping only titles with "Geography of" in the title). You also can, through the 'List' menu convert your list from and to talk pages: if you have a list of articles, you can covert it into a list of the talk pages of those articles (e.g., for project tagging); conversely, if you have a list of article talk pages (maybe taken from a WikiProject category), you can convert it into a list of the articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A more advanced extension of the list-generation principle is the 'List comparer' tool found under the 'Tools' menu. It allows the user to generate, filter and cross-check two lists, resulting in three lists: pages unique to the first list, pages unique to the second list, and pages common to both lists. The tool is quite handy for populating category intersections and, in general, identifying overlaps or gaps. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Automatic changes and typo fixing
There's not much I can say about this beyond what's written AutoWikiBrowser/User manual. In essence, one can (through the 'Options' tab of the action panel) enable automatic tagging, various general fixes, or typo fixes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Replacement (of text, files or categories)
AWB offers two primary tools for replacement: (1) 'Find and replace' for general text replacement, and (2) built-in functionality for files and categories.


 * Find and replace

The 'Find and replace' tool is part of the 'Options' tab of the action panel. To carry out straightforward text replacement, click the 'Normal settings' button and specify what text you want AWB to find and with what to replace it. There are a number of optional settings for: ignoring certain text, such as links, images, templates and citations; adding/removing the replacement action from the edit summary; making the search case-sensitive; and specifying regular expressions. (The last one I can't do yet.)

For example, I have saved the following replacement, which I perform only when there are other changes:  →. One needs, of course, to be careful to minimize the possibility of false positives—e.g., in the previous example, leaving out the colon would cause all uses of the word "image" (including article text) to be targeted for replacement.

Let's consider a more complex example. Say you want to replace all uses of a template with one that uses parameters and has more functionality. So, you might want to replace  with. In that case, you could specify the following replacement:

{{Template_1|date= to {{Template_2|parameter|date=

Note that I left out the actual date, so that whatever dates are in place will remain.

Let's take an even more complex example. Let's say that you want (for whatever reason) to assess as 'Low-importance' all unassessed 'Stub-class' articles of a particular WikiProject. The WikiProject's banner is Template:WikiProject Foo and has a commonly used redirect, Template:FooWikiProject. In a case such as this, a single replacement command will not account for all possible replacements. So, you could specify all of the following:



to be replaced with:


 * File and category removal or replacement

To remove or replace a file or category: generate a list of pages to be edited; click the 'More...' tab of the action panel; and type, in the appropriate slots, the name (without the namespace prefix) of the file/category to be removed. If replacing, also specify the name (again, without the namespace prefix) of the new file/category. You can also use the same function to comment out (i.e., ) files and add categories (the new category always will be added to the end of the category list, so you may wish to reposition it manually). In each case, just choose from the drop-down menus the particular task that you want to perform.

-- Black Falcon {{sup|(talk)}} 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagging
Semi-automated page tagging (e.g., for a group nomination or project tagging) is possible through the 'More...' tab of the action panel (middle, bottom). The relevant section is titled 'Append/Prepend text' and must be manually enabled. Any text that you type in the text box will be added to either the bottom (append) or top of a page (prepend). If the text specifies any functions, such as substitution, they will be performed before the change is saved.

For example, to nominate for deletion all subcategories of Category:Years of the 18th century in Spain, you could prepend the following text: Years of the 18th century in Spain in order to generate the CFD notice box with a link to a section on the CFD log page titled 'Years of the 18th century in Spain'.

In many cases, manual modification will be required. For example, if you wanted to change all 'Category:#### in Spain' to 'Category:#### in the Spanish Empire', you could prepend the following text: and simply replace '####' with the appropriate year in the edit box. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) in the Spanish Empire

Previewing and saving
Prior to saving, one can preview any changes to page content in the preview pane at the top of the screen. When first clicking 'Start' (under the 'Start' tab in the action panel), AWB will display a diff of all changes in the preview pane. One can, however, preview the page prior to saving by clicking the 'Preview' button (below the 'Start' and 'Stop' buttons). One can also move, watch, delete and/or protect a page using the corresponding buttons in the 'Start' tab.

When specifying an edit summary, one can use one of the default summaries from the drop-down list or type a custom summary. It is possible to customize the default edit summaries by clicking 'Options' (at the top, not in the action panel) and then selecting 'Default Edit Summaries'. The edit summary to be used at any given time can be previewed by clicking the 'Edit Summary' tab of the 'Edit box' panel in the bottom right.

After all other steps have been taken, click 'Save' to save the edit or, if the edit involves only trivial changes, 'Skip' to skip to the next page in the list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

With apologies to the Guardian of Forever, "A QUESTION"
Looking at Category:Films based on British novels, it seems to be pretty well evenly split between "Films based on Foo" and "Foo Films", but is parented "Works based on novels". Would standardising it on "Films based on Foo" need a full CfD or do you think they could be speedied? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the situation is a bit too convoluted for a simple speedy. For example: Category:Discworld films and TV series‎ mixes films and television series; Category:Dracula films‎ and Category:Frankenstein films‎ contains films which are "based on" the novels Dracula and Frankenstein, respectively, only to the extent that they contain characters portrayed to be Dracula and Frankenstein (often with very little similarity to the original characters); Category:Doctor in the House‎ is, unlike all of the other categories, a topic category—and likely in need of a rename to match the main article; and so on. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid I don't recognize the reference... the closest I could find was this.
 * Hmm, makes sense, I reckon. Thanks. And the reference is to this. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

CfDs
Thanks I've made some sloppy errors at WP:CFD/S and you've picked up the slack--I appreciate it. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) I know how easy it can be to mix up a link or two when making a series of repetitive nominations. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagging
Ok, so I listed a group nom, and never got around to attempting the awb tagging (I was distracted by other things). So now, it looks like I need to renom a clearer/broader nom. Sooo, I'll try what you laid out above, but I may have some questions - fair warning : ) - jc37 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Be my guest, please, and it's good to talk to you again. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol thanks. You too. (For awhile, you were away more than here, so I'll (hangs head) admit that I hadn't checked your talk page (or contribs) recently. So don't be surprised if I'm around more : )
 * AWB decided to be annoying - I couldn't sign in. I did as advised, so hopefully it's fixed : ) - jc37 01:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm trying to generate a list. I see that "special page" is an option, but I don't see how to actually use the special page to generate the list I want (prefix index in this case).
 * See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_26 for more info. - jc37 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Select the Special page option from the drop-down list and click "Make list". In the pop-up window, choose "All pages with Prefix (Prefixindex)" for Source, the namespace, and the search string for the list you want. That should do it... -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. I didn't expect the pop up (which was why I was at a loss : ) - jc37 16:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

 * User:Black Falcon
 * User:BrownHairedGirl
 * User:The Bushranger
 * User:Fayenatic london
 * User:Good Olfactory
 * User:Jc37
 * User:Mike Selinker
 * User:Timrollpickering
 * User:Vegaswikian

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Wikipedia.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering your previous comments, including ones above - >Poke< : ) - jc37 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Fox


The article Jonathan Fox has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced BLP that fails to establish notability

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Ba se me nt 12 (T.C) 18:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Graphic Lab
It appears to me that a consensus has been reached at this discussion. Assuming that you agree, what do you think is the best way to implement the change?

Counting both redirect and non-redirect pages, Graphic Lab has 325 subpages and Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab has 56 subpages. This is well in excess of the current (default) maximum number of pages that can be moved at once. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm looking over user rights. I see move-subpages. And see that it has the 100 page limit on en.wp.
 * I also see "big delete" exists to bypass a normal restriction. I wonder if "big move" exists somewhere. If not, this will take more than a steward request, I think. - jc37 03:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not possible to do using a user-right, a bot can easily handle this (mine already has approval to do so in cases like this). Legoktm (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see: User_talk:MBisanz - jc37 20:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please : )
If you would, please look this over, and help with clarity. (I've further explanatory text on the talk page. Perhaps some of that should be integrated to the page?) And of course, comments most welcome.
 * Requests for removal of adminship

And as usual, I'm happy to further try to explain the whys and wherefores : ) - jc37 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted a detailed comment at the talk page, suggesting a few additions and addressing some of the points raised in previous discussion. On the whole, WP:RRA is a process that I would support implementing after a few changes. I liked, in particular, your idea to follow the model of WP:RFA. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I'm kinda looking back on how successful I felt it was in the past with other policies and processes that we've worked on collaboratively : ) - jc37 23:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Soooo. Any chance you would be willing to help flesh out the page? In the past with community-wide proposals, I have found that the main issue has been confusion. Now that you have a decent idea of the intent of this, would you look at some copy-editing, and possibly even linking/referencing (You've always been good at that : )
 * I think some of the clarifications I noted on the talk page should probably be merged into the proposal. But I'm stuck on trying to find a balance between having it look more like a proposal, and having it look like what the final form of the process page should look like. Maybe I need two separate pages? I dunno, but help would be most welcome : )
 * If not, that's fine, but it rarely hurts to ask : ) - jc37 07:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)