User talk:Donnie Park/Archive 4

Honda R800 and R1300
I reverted your original edit to Template:Honda because you included Mugen Motorsports and Hirotoshi Honda which aren't really related to Honda at all. I also did it because I did do a Google search on Honda R800 and Honda R1300, but didn't find any information on either of these. Can you show me some reliable sources that tell what these two vehicles are? Would love to get rid of the red links and start actual articles for them. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These two are racecars of the 1960's, I included them because the HSV-010 GT is listed there, which will never be intended for production. As for reliable sources, its not easy unless somebody have a good knowledge in Japanese and have access to magazines there as these cars are not known outside Japan. I provided you photos of the cars as pictures are worth a thousands words.      Donnie Park (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup. Makes sense to me. I've added a race automobiles category on Template:Honda for these type of vehicles. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of fictional vehicles
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of fictional vehicles. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of fictional vehicles (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Got a weed-whacker?

 * List of fictional pigs
 * List of fictional vampires — omits the non-fictional ones

There are more such lists; it's a wiki.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (January)
-- Midgrid  (talk)  19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial design and Design portal
Hi Donnie. I just recently saw you were in the project, so I added you to the list of participants (where you can put your initials if you care). Schluum is working on the List of uncategorized articles and Intelligentsium on the Portal. Until we get our first Cleanup listing and clarify the Project tags issue, I think the best you can do now is take a look at the New articles page: you have to check each article in the list and determine if it is really related to Industrial design as a category; if it is, you tag it with the most precise subcategory. By the way, could you please put this tag in your talk page: Thanks, -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope questions
This text is extracted from here. Please give it a thought as a member of WikiProject ID and put your ideas back there: The first tagging operation of February 13, 2010 revealed some lingering scope questions that we want to discuss with each member of the project:
 * The tagging gave 530 articles.
 * We had previously estimated the number of potential ID articles to be around 1850...
 * So the difference is this (those articles that Mr. ZooFari did no do with automated tagging but are part of the Wikipedia Industrial design category hierarchy):
 * Category:Automobile designers (455 articles);
 * Category:Cycle designers (25 articles);
 * Category:Motorcycle designers (25 articles);
 * Category:Textile designers (33 articles);
 * Category:Computer-aided design (510 articles);
 * Category:Furniture (around 1250 articles).
 * Note 1: Keep in mind there are overlaps, so numbers do not add up.
 * Note 2: I had previously decided to exclude non-furniture categories from the ID project because: by looking at some of the Category:Consumer goods articles, I thought they were not 'a good fit' as a whole, although some of them could be included later on an individual basis. (but that can also be reconsidered by the team)

The question is... What do we do about that? As always each solution has its advantages and inconvenients, both technical and ideological... So, team, what do you think? -- AlainR345  Techno-Wiki-Geek  19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) We keep that situation 'as is'.
 * 2) We ask somebody else to possibly automate all the rest of it.
 * 3) We reselect some of those categories for automation (which ones?) and do the rest by hand on an article-by-article basis.

AfD nomination of List of vehicle nameplate sales figures
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of vehicle nameplate sales figures. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of vehicle nameplate sales figures. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed PROD on List of sports rivalries
I have removed the prod tag from List of sports rivalries, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

This may not be the most polished list in WP, but it certainly meets broad WP:LIST and WP:CLN guidelines. The mere fact that it has been around and contributed to consistently since 2005 should give it the benefit of a comprehensive deletion debate if is has to come to that.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not the nominator, although I did support the PROD although I did my best to add sources to make this list more encyclopaedic. Worth asking you this, do you follow sports, if so, then ever thought how common rivalries are in sports, hence my point, plus are we going to add every rivalries that most of these will fade to insignificance in 5/10 years time. Donnie Park (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Donnie, you make a good point about Rivalry criteria, and that's something that could be improved in this list. Indeed I am a avid Sports fans and understand the conceptual problem that the term Rivalry can cause if it not well defined in the context of this article.  You did mis-characterize my statement above in your deletion debate comments. The comment above does not, as you suggest, say that because the article is old it shouldn't be deleted.  It says, I think very clearly, that its long term existance and history of many contributors should give it the benefit of an AfD instead of a no-discussion-PROD.  The removal of a PROD should not imply that the remover automatically is in favor of keeping the article, merely that the article deserves a broader debate on its further existance--Mike Cline (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I don't mean to mis-characterize the comments, I initially based it on the recent deletion nomination of another 5 year old article, though it was AfDed rather then merged, as a result, I decided to remove that part in my argument. Donnie Park (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Donnie - take a look at this essay I wrote on creating a better list. Given your ideas about the vagueness of the term Rivalry you can do one thing that will essentially make this list bullet-proof.  Rewrite the lead-in in a way that unequivocally establishes what constitutes a rivalry (past, present or future) and source that definition with one or more reliable sources.  Once that's done, list notability or indiscriminancy cannot be challenged successfully.  All that will remain is some clean-up to ensure entries meets the inclusion criteria you establish in the lead-in.  It's not a life-time project--establish bullet-proof inclusion criteria and others will improve the article.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (February)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re proposed deletion of James Major
Hi, you left me a message about the proposed deletion of the James Major article, however I did not create the artical that is currently there. The user that you may need to warn is, who was the first user to turn the redirect that I created into an article. --  role player 12:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (April)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (May)
– Cs-wolves  (talk)  16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)