User talk:Cobblet/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for August 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shantar Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smelt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles FAQ
The FAQ is hideously out-of-date and if today's VA participants gave it serious consideration, they'd probably disagree with large chunks of it. I have proposed eliminating the 25-person cap on political leaders; I hope you can agree with me on that. p b  p  16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I support the thinking behind having a quota – the question is what we think that quota should be. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be 25, that's for sure. It should be at least 30.  I would also support lowering the quota for musicians, if there is one.  I am open to you proposing an alternate proposal, provided it gives us more flexibility among leaders.  p  b  p  21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

East-West Schism
Hi. I don't follow the vital article pages, and just returned from being without Internet for a while also. So I was surprised to find that the schism's article had been demoted to level 4 (not sure precisely what that means - is it regarded as a measure of its level of importance to history?). On the vital article talk page I discovered interesting comments. User @Malerisch and user @Gizza question its significance, and claim a coverage in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox articles that is not there. Those articles call on East-West Schism to cover that material.

As to historical significance, I find your comment "the immediate political consequences of the Protestant Reformation were much more severe". Um, really? How about the fourth crusade, the nail in the coffin to all subsequent notions of reconciliation, and the cement of the schism. Why do you think Pope Innocent III favored a route to Jerusalem that went through Constantinople? There were other wars too. The history of Russia is replete with the overtones of east-west conflicts, political and religious, at least from the time of Peter the Great (but also before). In World War II, Greece fought Italy to a standstill, forcing Germany to send its armies to complete its conquest. That and the subsequent resistance were fueled by memory of the immediate after-effects of the schism and its wars. The Reformation was confined primarily to the west, but the schism was considerably wider.

Not to nit-pick any ill-considered comments, I simply wonder about the basis upon which this rating of the schism was made. To my mind, it seems that a great deal of real history (as well as religion) could be wrongly marginalized in that decision. What I have not seen is any real discussion. The vital article talk page section was a gloss, and I am not seeing evidence that any comment reflected much awareness. I was offline at the time, but I would not have seen the discussion anyway. Perhaps someone would like to respond about my comments on it. I wouldn't mind a bit of enlightening also about what these ratings contribute to WP. They've always seemed peripheral to me. Evensteven (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How to go about
Looking for your advice. I'd like to change article names for a bunch of chess variant articles to their proper representations (proper nouns). (E.g. Alice chess → Alice Chess. On the basis that the latter is the proper noun and proper name.) The thing is, I know we have talked about this before, and if I remember, your position was no change at MOS (or at WP:Article titles) is necessary, since proper noun is capitalized, period. But the thing is, there are a massive number of articles with incorrectly uncapped names, so that means the "grain" on WP practice is the wrong way (and if I attempt massive changes, I'll run into contention). I don't want to run into contention, or have discussion of the same principle on each & every article Talk page (e.g. the issue is the exact same re Grand chess → Grand Chess). It seems to me the only way around that is to open up the issue somewhere, get a consensus, and add clarification to policy where/how appropriate. (Otherwise, again, I'll be repeating the same entire debate again & again on the numerous article Talks, which seems unreasonable and illogical. [For example, if debate article by article is the way, then Alice Chess might end up Alice Chess OK, but Grand Chess might end up Grand chess, by corresponding consensuses. There would be nothing left for me to do but quit the effort as an absurd waste of time, and I don't want to proceed down a path that ends up that result.]) Now, the examples I named so far are simple and straightforward, but I'm not saying they all are or would be. (For example, makruk is an historical chess variant, so are chaturanga, and we can add regionals too e.g. shogi & xiangqi etc. An expert liguistic editor asserted thru his actions all those s/b lower-case. OK. [Why exactly? I honestly do not know. But I can accept it.] But the question is, where does that rule fade, and the all caps on games like Alice Chess begin? [Is there a gray area of constituent game names that fall in the middle? I don't know. Maybe. But then, how would that debate/consensus ever get reached, without some guiding principles/rules that are laid out & understood so can be discussed & used/worked with?]) My issue & desire is not to solve *all* those problems. Just the clear ones. (Alice. Grand.) (But I realize at same time of course, it is opening up the logical box that the other stuff mentioned s/b understood too at same time, to know where the line is, if there is one.) OK I've explained my genuine need for guidance here, please help with your thoughtful advice or recommendation. Thanks. (No hurry. I'm lazy!) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. One thing that's really funny to me is what was decided (consensus) at Talk:Go (game) for the game of go. (They decided to cap. But not based on the definitivie "is it a proper noun or isn't it" [both cap & lowercase were shown to exist in different RSs], but based on they felt if it were lower-case [IMO the right answer of course, if "chess" and "xiangqi" and "shogi" are lower-case], the word might cause confusion by being misinterpreted as a verb ["to go"]!! [Haha! Funny. As if context wouldn't clarify that, duh!]) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk)
 * I don't think a straightforward answer exists. I'm not even sure chess variant names should be regarded as proper names, unless they're trademarks. Why are you so certain that both words in "Alice chess" and "Grand chess" should be capitalized? Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "Milky Way Galaxy" trademarked? It's a proper name, and not "Milky Way galaxy". (The word "galaxy" is analogous to word "chess". "Milky Way" is not a modifier. "Galaxy" is part of the proper name. Ditto "Andromeda Galaxy" is not "Andromeda galaxy".) Some game authors preempted the problem stemming from separation with inseparable compound names, e.g. Dragonchess, Quatrochess. Those that didn't like Alice & Grand (e.g. Wildebeest Chess, Wolf Chess) s/n be relegated to malaligned lowercasing of "chess" to sentence case when it is not a modified word but part & parcel of the game name (like "Andromeda Galaxy" is not "Andromeda galaxy"). The problem on WP goes beyond CVs. For example the game name is "Chinese Checkers" (not "Chinese checkers") -- "Chinese" is not a modifier of word "checkers", the word is part & parcel of the proper name (same again as "Andromeda Galaxy" not "Andromeda galaxy"). Do you see the repetition of problem going on? "Chess960" isn't trademarked and it is always capitalized. The better sources do the same with each of the examples I've mentioned. The examples of sources that have it sentence case like on WP don't make sentence case right it is just careless publishers/publishing (same as if published "Andromeda galaxy" -- I'm sure some do!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure Alice can't be used a modifier the same way Andromeda can't be used as a modifier? I see "Alice Fool's Mate" and "Alice Scholar's Mate" used in the article. My point is that I'm not sure the situation is as cut-and-dried in the case of chess variants as it is in other contexts: I thought phrases where the first word of a chess variant name is used as a modifier were commonplace, e.g. "Berolina pawns". Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is taking us off point. (I'm fine with "mate" being lowercase. Or whatever. Is "Fool's Mate" a proper name? I don't know [I'm the editor responsible for "Alice Fool's Mate" and "Alice Scholar's Mate" -- those are my edits -- but they were just and only guesses or trys] but I'm not really concerned about it because it isn't a CV game name which I'm interested to correct on the WP. In those examples "Alice" may be short name/abbreviated name/informal name. Just like "Milky Way" is short/abbreviated/informal for "Milky Way Galaxy".) I'm not sure what you're getting at. ("Berolina pawns" is fine. "Berolina Chess" is a CV proper name. "Alice Chess" and "Chinese Checkers" are proper names. If you used "Andromeda" as a modifier in whatever example, it would be like "Berolina pawns" which is fine. But "Andromeda Galaxy" is proper name. If one is identifying or describing a pawn, then "Berolina pawns" is fine. But if there happened to be a CV game name with those same words, then "Berolina Pawns" would be the game proper name [where "Pawns" isn't being modified but is part & parcel of the game name], not "Berolina pawns" [confused sentence case as has been typically done on WP].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that I didn't think such constructions are standard with typical proper names, e.g. Andromeda _____ (rather than Andromeda Galaxy ____ ) to refer to something related to the galaxy. So it's not clear to me that these chess variant names should be treated as such. It isn't standard to use "Berolina" as an abbreviation (even informally) for Berolina Chess, yet it is also not standard to say "Berolina Chess pawns". I sense something happening here at the syntactic level that's beyond my ability to explain: you're better off asking an actual linguistic expert. Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your above several times, am not sure but think you're saying: there's a difference between "Berolina Chess" and "Andromeda Galaxy", in that "Berolina" can't be used w/o "Chess" to mean the game, but can be used w/o "Chess" to implicate the game when it's a modifier ("Berolina pawns"), whereas "Andromeda" can be used w/o "Galaxy" both to mean the galaxy and to implicate the galaxy when it's a modifier. (Is that right? And if so, then the analogy I've drawn shows a difference? So by that difference you question whether "Berolina Chess" is the proper noun for the game over "Berolina chess"?) Just trying to understand your thought. For the case of "Chinese Checkers" vs "Chinese checkers", it's interesting difference that "Chinese Checkers marble" cannot be shortened to "Chinese marble" (like "Berolina Chess pawn" can be shortened to "Berolina pawn"). But I'm not sure the significance of any of these observations re my contention that "Chinese Checkers" is proper name (not "Chinese checkers"), just like "Andromeda Galaxy" is proper name (not "Andromeda galaxy"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chinese Checkers "feels" more like a proper noun to me. But there seems to be a difference between Chinese Checkers and Berolina Chess/chess (and most other chess variant names). I'm honestly not sure if that's true or not; sorry I can't give you a straight answer. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to ask beyond your capacity or patience. My simple contention is, to pick an example case, "Grand Chess" is no different from "Chinese Checkers" re proper name. (And, no different from "Andromeda Galaxy". It's not "Grand chess" or "Chinese checkers" sentence case as WP uses, any more than "Andromeda galaxy" sentence case is correct for proper name. And, I'd like to change those article names -- correct them really.) You're not sure, but can't specify why. OK. But I presume you think "Grand chess" is the proper name for that game. My logical follow up would be why you think that? (The articles are generally like that today, but again I'm asserting that was incorrect use of sentence case, probably by people unfamiliar with CV literature less than me. [They didn't know what to do, so ended up using sentence case by mistake. So it became normalized and presumed correct. But on what basis? You originally asked why I thought "Grand Chess" s/b proper form. I've answered expansively. But really I think more appropriate for shoe to be on other foot, i.e. on what basis s/ proper name be "Grand chess"? I think clearly that would be harder to defend, but it seems to be the position you take. I don't get that.]) Let me add a new thought here (one that just came to me). It might explain the "feeling" you have re "Chinese Checkers" is OK but "Grand Chess" is not. I just noticed this: if one speaks the name "Grand Chess" (orally out loud, please do it!), there will be emphasis on "Grand" and deemphasis on "Chess". Ditto "Capablanca Chess". Ditto "Fischerandom Chess". And "Wolf Chess" and "Wildebeest Chess". But! But when one speaks out loud orally "Milky Way Galaxy", the tone is flat (no emphasis, or if there is emphasis, probably on "Galaxy"). Ditto "Andromeda Galaxy". Ditto "Chinese Checkers". (So what does this mean? I don't know. But I think it explains perhaps, why as earlier mentioned some CV authors use compound name forms for their game names, e.g. "Dragonchess", "Quatrochess" ... simply because those forms or spellings are instantly compatible with the deemphasis on word "chess" due to pronunciation inherent in syllablization. And perhaps importantly, because of the deemphasis when speaking the non-compound game names like "Grand Chess", it sounds like syllablization, even when it isn't, so the tendency is to want to "see" it that way in print, even when it's not or shouldn't be!) Do you think I'm on to anything here? I'm wondering if it explains the feeling of discomfort you mentioned re "Grand Chess". If you think so, I guess my own conclusion from there, would be that it is an orally spoken phenomenon (that "Chinese Checkers" et al are spoken flatly, or with emphasis coming last, whereas "Grand Chess" et al are spoken with emphasis on first part followed by deemphasis), but that pheomenon exists in the oral world, and really doesn't (and shouldn't) have translation into the print world when choosing to capitalize or not these proper names. (So, "Fischerandom Chess" is still spelled with caps, but pronounced as though syllablized with deemphasis: "Fisherandomchess", but "Fischerandom chess" is just a confused attempt to "put right" the oral expectations from hearing it out loud, but is incorrect to do that by forcing lowercase when going to print.) The opposing conclusion I suppose is that the oral phenomenon I've noticed does have implications when going to print -- resulting in "Grand chess" -- but I really don't know why it could or should or would. Anyway that is a new thought and how my head processes it. (Do you think has merit to explain anything here?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stravinsky, Debussy, Verdi etc
I see you have made your support for adding Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong to the Level-3 vital articles conditional to the removal of Verdi and Tchaikovsky. I'm not sure that Wikipedia allows the attchment of conditions when voting for or against a nomination. However even if it is allowed, I think it unnecessarily puts the first nomination in jeopardy and may result in "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Maybe nominations involving these particular musicians and composers have failed in the past because of too much horse-trading and attachment of conditions by some participants as they have tried to achieve multiple personal goals simultaneously at the expense of the larger process. I share your belief that Verdi and Tchaikovsky should be demoted to Level 4 and have I nominated them for exactly that; but I also think a step-by-step approach may be necessary to achieve long term success. I don't think other participants can be coerced into supporting both nominations at the same time if they're not yet ready to do that. If you really think horse-trading is the only way to do this, then I'll offer you one "deal" of my own, but only one. I'll formally nominate Debussy for inclusion in the Level-3 vital list if you make your support for Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong unconditional. Apparently there's room on the list for the inclusion of Debussy and I think I can make a strong argument for his elevation to Level 3. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My support is conditional because I believe there are probably too many musicians as it is, and IMO we absolutely should not be including more. It's a bit rich to argue that Stravinsky or Debussy are absolute necessities when Lenin has been removed from the list and the addition of FDR has consistently failed to garner enough support. And the latter two are personalities that matter much more to the average person. The issue of balance is more important to me than nitpicking exactly who we should include. I also know from experience that while it's very easy to convince people that something is important, it's very hard to convince people that something else isn't important. If you prefer that I change my !vote to an oppose, I can do that. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dhaka
Hey, if Dhaka municipal corporation has been dissolved, than there there is no Dhaka City. Dhaka District - which is 565.1 square miles - is not a local government and certainly not a "city proper." Actually, looking at its city page, it appears that Dhaka City has been split into two municipal corporations/local governments. I'd suggset, then, that we use these two "cities" as the city proper since it seems to be identical to the area of the former united municipal corporation. But, listing the entire district is a city proper does not respect the spirit of the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the fact that the definition of a "city proper" is a controversial issue and has been discussed ad nauseam for as long as this article has been around. However, I count 41 cities currently listed (i.e. almost half the list) with a larger area than Dhaka District. Even Greater London is bigger – good luck convincing anyone that Greater London is not a "city proper". And the density of Dhaka District is over 8000 people per square kilometer – there is no question that this is a heavily urbanized area under the jurisdiction of a single local government. As such, I think giving the figure for Dhaka District is fully within the "spirit" of the list, as you say. To include only the area corresponding to the former municipal corporation would be rather akin to claiming that the city proper of London should be limited to Inner London, which is no longer an administrative entity and merely a collection of London boroughs. I forgot to change the area statistic for Dhaka and I'll fix that. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor form
It is deemed poor form to revert an edit without responding to the talk page comments. The talk page discussion can be found here Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was quick. I was about to reply but you reverted me first. I'll revert back once I've replied. Cobblet (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Visual loss and hard of hearing are two of the most important health issues globally. Allergies are typically little more than a nuisance and smallpox no longer exists. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All valid points. But we receive too many drive-by changes to this list and we've put a formal discussion process in place as a result. Cobblet (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have still not replied on the talk page? Procedural reverts are not in line with Wikipedia norms. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah there you go. We can now discuss. 08:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
 * Can you please give me more than 10 seconds before reverting me? Your subsequent additions to the talk page caused an edit conflict which meant I couldn't save my reply. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

List of North American cities by population
What estimates are used for this list? It appears that Chicago has recently surpassed Toronto in population in 2014. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true we need to update the US cities for 2014, but this is the latest population estimate for Chicago. Cobblet (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That link sent me to a list of state populations. Is the 2013 estimate for Chicago the latest available? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I'm actually updating the table right now – will have to find a link that actually works. Check the Wikipedia page for Chicago – it has the 2014 estimate and the number remains lower than Toronto's. Cobblet (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for responding so quickly. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you for introducing me to a part of Chinese culture I knew nothing about. I know the difficulty of writing an article on a subject whose primary sources are in a language I don't speak – kudos to you for persisting anyway and succeeding admirably. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The support vote is also very much appreciated! Yunshui 雲 水 10:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Largest cities in the Americas
The population of Bogotá (city proper) has increased because there are more than 3 million people that has been displaced from the rural areas by the ilegal armed groups (FARC), (ELN). Displacement JuandisCV (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you need to find a reliable source for the statistic you've given. And it needs to be a statistic to refers specifically to the city proper of Bogotá, not the Metropolitan Area of Bogotá nor even the entirety of the Distrito Capital. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
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! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Cs california, I have previously suggested a compromise solution and have nothing new to add. While your concerns are legitimate, there are also legitimate concerns to your currently chosen method of addressing them. By making large-scale changes despite a clear lack of consensus that they constitute improvements (you can't claim WP:WIP, which isn't official policy anyway, if your edits aren't "better than nothing") you have frustrated the various US editors to such an extent that I highly doubt they'll be able to assume good faith from you, and as long as that remains the case there is little chance a consensus can be built and you are unlikely to achieve anything productive in this area. Is it really worth your time to pursue a lost cause? Surely you realize there are other articles on Wikipedia in more dire need for improvement. Cobblet (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Remove Job
Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been away with limited internet capability. I've marked support as nom on the page. Thank you for pointing this out to me. RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: WC Pairings
FIDE published pairings. It is different from previous WCs, because it doesn't use newest elo (september). Én bạc (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Norytsin, Gerzhoy
Hello, thanks for adding info to Nikolay Noritsyn's entry. As to Leonid Gerzhoy, when I added the tag it wasn't written in the biography (thus I didn't know) that he finished equal 1st in this year's Canadian Championship. Now I added it in the bio. Sophia91 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries – as you might be aware, the general consensus on WP:CHESS is that national champions should be automatically considered notable. I appreciate your efforts to improve our chess articles – keep up the good work! Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

About WT:VA/E
You closed the discussion "Add Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square" too early, since I had changed my vote from only supporting V-J Day in Times Square to supporting all shortly (less than a day) before you closed this discussion. I suggest that you wait another 30 days to see if there is truly no consensus on the issue.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, User:RekishiEJ. "After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support." Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm somewhat unfamiliar with this rule. But I've a question: if a proposal was made 30 days ago, and now the proposal has earned 4 opposition votes and failed to earn two-thirds support, then may you remove it from the list? Another question: now that you used this rule to remove the proposal I mentioned above, why didn't you use the term "Failed" instead of "No consensus"?--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. And sorry for the typo. Cobblet (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

sorry for taking over a year to move
but I finally did ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

W. L. Dudley
Did you ever figure out how to improve the scientific sections of William Lofland Dudley? Cake (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally forgot about this. See User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/October. I'll try to implement some of the things I suggested over the weekend. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cobblet. I have to find it amazing how much he knew about smoking, and the neon aurora bit left me dumbfounded. Cake (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of a large amount of revisions with no explanation
Hi. Can you please explain why you went and removed 11 entries I made some time ago on various Wiki Project pages... 1. There was no contact from you on my talk page explaining your actions and 2. Are you connected specifically with all of these Wiki Project groups?

-The entries I made were intended to benefit those specific project groups and only those connected to the groups should be removing or moving the entries. Clarification please. Taurusthecat (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Such notices should be posted on the talk page of those wikiprojects, not the project page. That nobody deleted your posts sooner indicates that those wikiprojects are largely inactive (although yes, I do work on articles belonging to some of those wikiprojects). The discussion you were linking to also appears to be dead. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guadalupe, La Chorrera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Chorrera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723892966 your edit] to Coco may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * * El Coco, Coclé, a township in Panama

Nominations of stub categories/templates
Hi. I closed this CfD. Just so you know for the future, the usual appropriate way to delete a stub template and category is to nominate the template for deletion before replacing it with other stub templates. If that discussion closes as delete, the stub templates will be replaced as appropriate. Afterward, the category can be speedy deleted as per WP:G8. ~ RobTalk 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Municipal census
I've updated two of the dead ref links at Municipal census in Canada, one of which is the Municipal Census Manual. The other dead links are refs in support of content for other provinces and territories beyond Alberta. I'm off on vacation for a few days. I'll reply to you at Talk:List of North American cities by population as soon as I can (as well as fix the other dead links at the previously mentioned article). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tecolutla River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arroyo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autoroutes of Morocco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Río Verde (Oaxaca), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spanish and Atoyac River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Mexican Chess Championship
Good job on the new Mexican Chess Championship wiki. Must've taken some serious effort to put together and those sorts of articles are always difficult. Jkmaskell (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jkmaskell – it's not much compared to the work you do on biographies, but yes, I've been tinkering with it on and off for a year. Cobblet (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Expansion!
Hey Cobblet, thanks for helping to expand the page I created for List of South American metropolitan areas by population last year! I've been super busy with college and life in general so I appreciate you going out and adding it looks like 31 more metro area's on there! I hope to get back into my Wikipedia work soon and looking at what pages you work on the most I'd love to collaborate with you in the future!

Thanks again,

Casseb (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's a pleasure to meet you. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Fan Kuan
Hi Cobblet! Hope you're well. Just wanted to get your opinion on whether the Song Dynasty painter Fan Kuan, assuming you know who he is, has a case for being vital or not. Cheers -- Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm doing fine, thanks. I'm completely uneducated when it comes to Chinese painting and had not heard of Fan Kuan. However, if you were to add someone from Chinese history based on their artistic contributions alone, Zhao Mengfu is a name I've heard of and I think you'd have to seriously consider him – his calligraphy is also very significant. For someone whose legacy extends beyond the artistic, I might look at Emperor Huizong of Song. Is the list at the point where we have the luxury to consider adding a Chinese artist? :-) Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Fan Kuan was proposed by somebody else on the expanded talk page hence why I asked. But like you I suspect, I've gradually become tired of the vital articles project. As fascinating as it is, it should be secondary and only complement content contributions to Wikipedia. In the last few months there were two articles added that were 4-2 and 3-3 respectively. I've been too busy IRL to even raise this issue. They're not quite nails in the coffin for me but it's getting close. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sensible people like yourself surely have better things to do. Initially I was happy to get involved because it forced me to learn and think about things I otherwise never would have, and it sharpened my awareness for the places where Wikipedia is lacking and where I might make a meaningful contribution. Three years later, it was time for me to move on and do just that (not to mention the rest of my life!) Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Category removal
Can you please explain why you are doing this? If you respond here, please use. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not sure if Morocco officially refers to these new regions (created in 2015) as the Southern Provinces (especially when it comes to Guelmim-Oued Noun, which only has one tiny sliver of land in the disputed territory of Western Sahara); and because Category:Regions of Morocco only contains the categories corresponding to each region and does not contain the region article separately. I don't mind changing that but then we should be adding all twelve regions to the category, not just these three. Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know the best course of action either--something to think about. I just saw a lot of categorization of these pages going back and forth recently. Thanks. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Chiriquí Lagoon) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Chiriquí Lagoon, Cobblet!

Wikipedia editor Reb1981 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good overall. Might wanna break it up a little in section(s)."

To reply, leave a comment on Reb1981's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Reb1981 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Tebesjuak Lake) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Tebesjuak Lake, Cobblet!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Kindly add more content, and sources to establish subject's notability."

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— usernamekiran (talk)  18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Princess Mary Lake
Hi, I'm Usernamekiran. Cobblet, thanks for creating Princess Mary Lake!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Kindly add more content, and sources to establish subject's notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

— usernamekiran (talk)  18:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Delhi and New Dehli
I thought I'd start communicating with you on your page, so as not to crowd out any other discussion taking place on the city page. Apart from my last post I have a few more questions/suggestions that I hope can improve the clarity on the different pages for the National Capitol Territory:

- Is a sub-district (taluka/tehsil) seen as the local/municipal government in areas that are unincorporated?

- At the district level, in which districts do the three Delhi Municipal Corporations, the New Dehli Municipal Council and the Delhi Cantt. exist? I want this kind of clarified so this information can be put into infoboxes and such on each of these pages.

- What's your idea about how we should view "city"? From a North American perspective, city almost always corresponds with the idea of local/municipal government, so on these "city" pages we'd be focusing primarily on municipal corporations/councils as the base for population and area figures, for instance. In the North American sense, a taluke or tehsil would be a "township," which is an administrative subdivision of some "counites" which would be roughly equivalent to Indian districts. In my mind, on the page of New Delhi, for instance, we'd mention right at the beginning that "New Dehli is a city is (such-and-such district)..." and all information in the article/infobox would correspond to the municipal council/corporation; we'd also add in the infobox in which districts the city exists. For example, my city of Lansing exists or has jurisdiction over territory in the counties/districts of Clinton, Eaton and Ingham County. The only real difference is that the townships (sub-districts in the case of India) legally stop existing if a city/municipal council annexes all of the area of those townships, though in other states in the U.S. they still exist and function as administrative sub-districts like they would in India.

Anyway, just want your thoughts on how this can be clarified on the city pages, and if you're interested in making some of these small changes. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a good place to start understanding how local government works in India. In unincorporated rural areas in the majority of states there is a three-tier system consisting of districts (zila), blocks (tehsil / taluka / mandal) and villages (gram panchayat / gaon panchayat).
 * 2) Without a map that superimposes the current MC boundaries on the current districts or some other miraculously precise and reliable source this will be difficult to figure out. We may have to wait until the Census of India publishes a 2021 edition of the Census Administrative Atlas.
 * 3) Quoting the document linked above, "Urban local bodies include municipal corporations for cities, municipalities for larger towns and town panchayats for smaller towns." These appear to be the final 2011 census population figures for them. Unfortunately, the individual profiles of the urban bodies do not include area figures, although the district profiles do. Of course, a lot of local administrative boundaries have changed since 2011 and trying to reliably cite current correspondences between MCs and districts may be difficult for many cities including Delhi. Cobblet (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Map or not, surely on the website of a municipal corporation/council there must be some listing of which districts they have territory in, right? I'll look closer at the maps you've linked me to on the Delhi page, because I think the district map does show the parts of municipal governments within their boundaries.  Delhi only has 11 districts, too, so it would be fairly easy to find this information at least for New Delhi, though it might be a bit harder as it relates to the three municipal corporations of Delhi.  Anyway, thanks.  Again, if you see any areas on any of these pages to clarify all of this, please make those changes. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of European Merit
In regards to your recent edit to the challenge page, I still want you to have this barnstar even if you apparently didn't put your name down as a participant. – Vami _IV✠  09:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks for the barnstar – I was just surprised to find myself listed as an active participant there when I've made more contributions to some of the other continent challenges. Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias concerns at VA/5
Just wondering if there was somewhere where I messed up and need to reassess how I'm going about populating the VAs. p b  p  00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can point out which sections you worked on, I'll do my best to provide feedback. Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did some work on the American and European political leaders, and some in the military leaders and activists, and some in the businessmen. My goal is to keep geographical representation similar to that in the 4 list.  p  b  p  01:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any part of the level 4 list where I find the geographical balance satisfactory. We need to do a lot better on level 5. I hate to belabor the point and I realize I'm asking a lot of you to venture beyond your comfort zone and investigate the histories of other countries, but the fact remains is that you're one of the few contributors who has any expertise in history to begin with: if you won't do it, I don't expect others to.
 * Politicians and leaders: While you've included some extremely well-known leaders of minority groups in the US, you've ignored a few others (Marcus Garvey, Mary McLeod Bethune, Dolores Huerta, Crazy Horse). In recent times, I'm a little surprised you put Cheney and especially Biden in ahead of Al Gore or Ralph Nader or Ted Kennedy. Also I know it isn't your doing, but I don't see why we need to list every US president. And what's going on with all the Oceanian leaders?
 * Military leaders and activists: I think you've definitely gone overboard on American Civil War generals. How do you justify their presence when you haven't included politicians who played prominent roles in 20th-century US foreign policy and military conflicts like Robert McNamara or Dean Acheson? And notice the extremely unbalanced coverage of this section in the first place – coverage of Asian, African and Latin American military history (e.g. in the context of decolonization) needs to be massively expanded. Also I notice Alice Paul and Kate Sheppard are missing.
 * Explorers and businesspeople: Again I know they're not your doing, but it's simply absurd to group explorers and businesspeople together, and the presence of Jeremy Clarkson must be some kind of sick joke. Off the top of my head I can think of Samuel Colt who seems more vital than several of your additions. Helena Rubinstein also comes to mind – she is not less vital than Estée Lauder. Even taking into consideration American dominance in the corporate world, the coverage of non-American businesspeople is pitiful. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, good suggestions. I think I saw Garvey on the list somewhere, but as a Jamaican rather than an American.  Cheney was not my doing; Guzzy added him with all the Oceanian articles.  I guess Bethune is a political leader, but I'd definitely classify Huerta and Crazy Horse as activists.  Gore, McNamara and Ted Kennedy would be good adds.  p  b  p  14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I made some of the changes you suggested here. I also took a stab at expanding Mexican vital articles.  I started on Jurists because I saw where Guzzy was going with it in his sandbox and wanted to preempt that.  John Marshall was in political leaders at Lv. 4, but he's in Jurists at Lv. 5.  Earl Warren is at jurists, but William Howard Taft and Charles Evans Hughes remain at political leaders.   p  b  p  14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As for military leaders, I may have gone a little overboard with 9 Civil War generals and 5 Revolutionary War generals (well, three generals, a colonel, and a commodore). But I do think there's definitely room for at least 4 or 5 Civil War generals.  p  b  p  14:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's start with four. I'll take a look at GuzzyG's sandboxen. Cobblet (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comarcas
Thanks for catching my error; I had started some work and got interrupted before fixing it. Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Interested in Mexican Municipalities?
Hi, I had a question I wanted your opinion on before making any changes. I recall that you were interested in these pages.

I'm wondering if I should begin standardizing Mexican municipality pages so that there is one page per municipality. I like how it is done here Colima City where the page is given the main city name, and there is a section for the municipality (Colima_City). Alternatively the page could be titled after the municipality and the article can have subsections for the city. I prefer the former, since there is always far more information on the city than the municipality. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Mattximus, I'm travelling in Guatemala atm and can't find the talk page where some of these issues had been discussed a few years back - I only recall that there was no consensus on anything. The lack of consistency is something Tobias Conradi tried to "fix" before he was finally blocked. I myself have gone both ways (San José del Rincón, Tlaxco Municipality, Tlaxcala). I don't have a firm opinion on any of the issues you raised, but here are some of my thoughts:

In practice I don't mind the merge you've made which I've also seen in many other articles - if we don't have the content right now to justify two separate articles, it makes sense. But in theory I think we should eventually have separate articles in most cases. I don't think it's generally true that there's more info on the municipal seat than the municipality - e.g. try finding something specifically on San Jose de Rincón Centro. There is an encyclopedia on the municipalities; there isn't one on localities or municipal seats AFAIK. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) First, I'm not convinced there is a need for standardization across all Mexican municipalities because they vary so widely in their geographical context. What makes sense for the municipalities in Baja California may not make sense for those in Oaxaca.
 * 2) That being said, there should always be an article that treats the municipality as the primary topic since it is the basic unit of local government.
 * 3) If the names of those articles have to be standardized they ought to take the form of "X Municipality", following the precedent of many country subdivisions. This is what I think Tobias was trying to do.
 * 4) But I am not convinced that adding "Municipality" to the name of every such article is necessary or even desirable even if it preserves consistency. I am not sure how often this naming format is used in English sources other than Wikipedia. I also personally dislike using names that have a disambiguating term if it's unlikely the disambiguation is actually needed for any reason other than consistency, e.g. there is another name the central locality goes by (San Jose del Rincón vs. San Jose del Rincón Centro); or if there is no need to have articles for both, either because there is only one INEGI-recognized locality in the municipality, or the municipality is dominated by one locality. The latter is subjective to an extent, but FWIW IMO Colima the city does not "dominate" Colima the municipality, since IIRC there are several auxiliary councils under the municipality. So IMO Colima City and Colima Municipality should have separate articles in theory.
 * Thanks for your insight. I agree with your comments. With those in mind, what do you think about these suggestions:
 * 1. Strive for a single non-stub page for every municipality, named after the municipality (but does not include the word "Municipality" in the title)
 * 2. All localities within each municipality should be part of the main municipality page unless there is enough information to warrant separating into multiple articles. In which case, a summary should still remain for the locality in the main municipality page.
 * Unless I am mistaken, I think these suggestions are in agreement with your comments, I will try changing a few to meet this standard and see if it works. Mattximus (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now found the discussions I was trying to remember: see Talk:Municipalities of Mexico, WikiProject Mexico/Strategy and WikiProject Mexico/Terminology.
 * I'm fine with your second point. I'm fine with your first point except the bit in parentheses – I don't think we should attempt to decide on a blanket rule either way without seeking a broader consensus first. In practice, here are the factors I consider when deciding whether to name a page "X Municipality" or just "X":
 * Whether the municipality and its seat share the same name;
 * What proportion of the municipality's population lives in the municipal seat;
 * How many other localities exist within the municipality;
 * How many of these other localities have their own auxiliary authorities;
 * How Wikipedia currently names nearby municipalities.
 * Hope that helps. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Municipalities of Colima
Municipalities of Colima has been promoted to featured list thanks to your help. I just wanted to send my appreciation for your work on this list. Now that it is promoted, it will now get more activity, be better monitored for quality, and be part of the greater goal of having a list of all first level administrative divisions in all countries on wikipedia. I'm currently working on bringing at least the tables and formatting up to date on the other lists for Mexican states. If there is any of those lists that interests you, and you want to see promoted, please let me know and I will try to work on that one, at least as much as I can given my language barrier. Mattximus (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I admire the work you've put into local government-related lists. Your work nicely complements mine on creating articles for Mexican municipalities that still don't have them. I'd be happy to pitch in whenever you need any help with your lists, whether Mexico-related or not. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've already nominated the second list Featured list candidates using all the references you dug up for Colima, but applied to Aguascalientes. I believe the table is accurate and the lead nearly complete. If you would like to review, that would be fantastic, especially if there are any Aguascalientes specific laws I have neglected. And there is absolutely no hurry, so please only review when you feel so inclined, as these nomination procedures often take months anyway. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also if there is any list that interests you, please let me know, I'm happy to work on tables for any list of municipalities. Mattximus (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look at the Aguascalientes list when I have a chance. In the meantime I've noticed that you've copy/pasted references to Colima's legislative provisions into that and other pages. Also some of the pages you've reformatted are now missing noinclude tags which have led to them being incorrectly transcluded into List of Mexican municipalities. Cobblet (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch, these paragraphs are just temporary as I improve the lists over time. I have now removed all references to Colima from them, keeping only information that holds true for the entire country. I fixed all the noinclude tags, so they should translocude correctly now. I really don't think that big list of every municipality in Mexico should be featured, since each state list has random info, and there is no significant lead, I might nominate that for de-listing since it is really far too large for a single page anyway. Mattximus (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the star on that list has been transcluded from the Colima list. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm wondering if you had time, if there was anything you would add to Municipalities of Aguascalientes before it becomes a featured list? If not, then I'll move on to the next one! Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added what I can. Not going to review it since I think it's fine the way it is. Cobblet (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, thank you for your support on these articles. I appreciate your edits and no need to review, it's likely to pass now that it seems complete. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I know you've been generous enough to take a look at the leads of the past two featured lists of Mexican municipalities, both of which were promoted due to your help in editing/improving. I have a third nominee as well, if you would be interested in looking it over (Municipalities of Baja California). Either way, thanks for your help on this project. Mattximus (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! I’m on the road again but I’ll take a look when I get back next week. Cobblet (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Delhi redux
Hello, again. We had a conversation back on the Delhi page about the difference between the local governments and the administrative divisions within Delhi NCT some time ago. I thank you for clearing that up for me. However, a recent change on Wiki's main page on "city propers" has called up another question I thought you might have an answer to.

Maybe or month or so ago, some changed the 11 million population figure given for Delhi to the 16 million population figure there, now. The latter is for the entire state. At the time of the 2011 Census of Indian, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was still in existence, and the figure they list for the Municipal Corporation of Dehli under the "Delhi Metropolitan/City Population" category is 11,034,555:

http://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/delhi.html

In fact, more specifically, this is given for the "Delhi (Municipal Corporation)". So, I'd been under the impression since then that this population was for the now-former Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which covered the vast majority of the NCT. But, seeing the 16.7 million figure got me thinking that given that the former municipal corporation covered nearly the entire area of the NCT save for New Delhi and Delhi Cantt, that there is no way that over 5 million people could exist outside the old Delhi Municipal Corporation. In my mind, this can only mean that the Census' 11 million figure isn't measuring the population within the old municipal corporation, but is in fact a statistical division measuring a part of the old municipal corporation - and maybe even measuring population that would include New Dehli and Dehli Cantt. In fact, since that entry is grouped with "census towns" it further makes me think this is a statistical division they are measuring and not a municipal one. Do you happen to know what "Delhi (Municipal Corporation)" is measuring, or if there is a Census figure for the whole of the former Municipal Corporation of Delhi? The Census literally gives four different population figures: Delhi NCT, Delhi Urban, "Delhi (Municipal Corporation)" and Delhi "Large Metropolitan Region," but none of these seems to be a measure of the population in the old Municipal Corporation of Delhi at the 2011 Census. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. I believe the 11 million figure was referring to the population within Delhi MC (NDMC and Delhi Cantt were counted separately: see, p. 2) not living in one of the so-called "villages." These villages, although under municipal jurisdiction, retain a limited degree of local governance: . These villages are administratively designated as either "rural" or "urban" for land development purposes: . Completely separate from this administrative designation is the Census's own statistical distinction between rural "villages" and urban "towns": . The census "towns" are included in the "urban population of Delhi" figure of 16.3 million, but not the 11 million figure. Cobblet (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To put this more simply, then, did the Census not simply measure the population within the whole of the Delhi Municipal Corporation during the 2011 Census? This seems weird to me that they'd measure everything but that.  Or, would one simply need to sum the population figures for the "Dehli Municipal Corporation" and the various census towns? --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's weird to us as non-locals because we assume "Delhi proper" to be contiguous with the Delhi Municipal Corporation. It may well be that the 11 million figure better represents what locals in 2011 would've considered "Delhi proper" – in other words, the "villages", whether administratively urbanized, statistically urban, or neither, lie outside "Delhi proper." In any case, I think the simplest way to get the figure for Delhi MC is to subtract the populations of NDMC and Delhi Cantt from the population of Delhi NCT. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that I assume like in any country it's important to know the boundaries and population of a municipal government for revenue sharing and the like, "weird" is actually me being kind in describing how unusual it is not to have that measurement front and center. But, yeah, anyway, I guess the easiest way to calculate this would be to take out NDMC and Delhi Cantt, though are we sure those aren't also statistical division measurements like Delhi MC that don't line up with their municipal boundaries? Thanks for all your help again.  BTW, are you using "village" and "census town" interchangeably in your responses above?  It's my understanding the census towns are purely statistical.  I assume that there are definitely administrative subdivisions underlying the tehsils which may have some kind of administrative use even within the boundaries of the municipal corporations, but I don't think these match up with census town boundaries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain about this, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest to me that the census entities of NDMC and Delhi Cantt don't line up with the municipal entities. The terms "village" and "census town" are indeed not interchangeable. Like you said, a census town is a purely statistical creation; while "village" has one meaning in the context of the Indian census (again I'll refer you to the bottom of ), and another in the administrative context of Delhi (again, see ). Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think you can point out the page(s) defining "villages" within an administrative subdivision context since that link you posted contains so many pages? I tried looking through it, but couldn't find a definition.  BTW, I think what originally confused me in this exchange is that I was really only asking about the "Delhi (Municipal Corporation)" measurement, and you kind of mixed that with talking about Delhi Urban/Rural urban area measurements, which I knew was a stastitical urban area measurement.  I did kind of mention it in passing along with the Delhi "Metropolitan Region" (still unsure of what that measures), but I was actually just interested in what "Delhi (Municipal Corporation)" was measuring, which apparently wasn't actually the whole municipal corporation. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the middle of the page the link opens up at (p. xi, 2nd paragraph): "[T]he present state of Delhi has urban [sic] as well as several villages within its boundaries. The villages are governed by their own traditional laws and customs as well as the laws of the three urban local bodies[....]" I too have no idea what the "metropolitan region" is. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that the question I asked was largely answered in our discussion above. The 11 million figure for the "city" of Delhi really shouldn't be the figure used on the List of cities proper by population article, as that article measures total population within municipal boundaries regardless of whether or not there are settlements not contiguous with the central urban settlement. In the case of that article, the population figure should be the measure of everything within the boundaries of the former Municipal Corporation of Delhi absent the New Dehli Municipal Council and Delhi Cantonnment. In other words, all of Delhi and the "census towns" and rural areas within the former Delhi Municipal Corporation boundaries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Brazil
Where is the source for the 2017 data you have added. The 2017 citation you included only has reference to 'municipios', so only around 12m for SP, whereas the actual figures in the article table are much higher (21m SP, so seem to relate to urban area) but don’t seem to be reflecting the source? Eldumpo (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies – for some reason I linked to the press release (which did not mention the metropolitan area figures) instead of the actual data table which has them. I have fixed the source and linked to the spreadsheet (see Tabela 4). Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing link.Eldumpo (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NCHESS listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NCHESS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NCHESS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Sandstein  19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Interested in a collaboration?
I'm wondering if you would be interested in co-nominating another List of Mexican municipalities? You already contributed to Municipalities of Aguascalientes and Municipalities of Colima, both of which made it to featured list status. If you are interested, I'm happy to work on the statistics table for any other state of your choice, and can initiate the nomination process. There is no rush, featured list process is very slow, just wondering if you would be interested. Mattximus (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to pitch in on any of these you want to nominate, as before. I'd actually prefer not to be named a co-nominator unless you think it'll somehow help with the process. Cobblet (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Looking forward to it. I've decided to nominate Coahuila, and here is this link to the nomination page. If there is anything you can see to add to the lead or anything else please let me know. It is a slow process so there is no hurry. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It looks like Municipalities of Coahuila is passing the featured list review, and I'm wondering if there is anything you would like changed or added to this list before it gets (hopefully) promoted? Either way, thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)