User talk:JeffW

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Hi, thanks for taking part in the project to categorise "good" articles, good work! Martin 00:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - Ravedave 02:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Should make a distinction between nuns and sisters after all that was what the nun article was all about. Williamb 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about me putting the Nun article in the Nuns category? I'm not sure why you say that this article is all about the distinction between Nuns and Religious sisters.  It seems to me that the article is about Nuns, with a section that describes the difference between a Nun and a Religious sister.  If you really want to distinguish between them then you should write an article about Religious sisters and add it to Wikipedia with the name Religious sisters.  You could then add it to Category:Religious workers.  If you could then locate or create more than a few articles about particular noteworthy religious sisters you could create the [:Category:Religious sisters]] for them.

TfD nomination of Template:Logo
Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Esprit15d 19:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer
The thing is, Wikipedia has an explicit rule that every article has to be filed in at least one non-stub category, so the category is only deletable if you know of another category that Pilot (Ghost Whisperer) can go in. It can't go directly into Category:2000s TV shows in the United States, Category:CBS network shows, Category:CTV network shows or Category:Paranormal television, because it's about an individual episode, not the series in general — so where else would you propose that it be filed? Bearcat 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll list the category at CFD for discussion, but it's not the kind of thing any administrator would just delete arbitrarily. Personally, I actually agree that separate articles for each individual episode of a TV series is going way overboard, but too many people see it differently — it would be too controversial to just delete without following process. Bearcat 19:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not actually very knowledgeable about the show; I've never seen it. The only reason I created the category was because the pilot episode had been filed directly in categories where it really didn't belong (Category:CBS network shows, Category:2000s TV shows in the United States, etc.), so I created the new category to get it out of the inappropriate ones. Judging by the episode list, though, somebody (not me) wikified all the episode titles, so clearly somebody intends to write them up (or just thinks somebody else will.) But my interest in the category was purely on the level of "administrator finds a bit of bad organization and cleans it up to the current standard", not a personal investment in the topic.
 * There's actually a fairly well-established Wikipedia precedent for series episode categories — there just isn't currently a separate parent category for them, so they're usually subcategorized under Category:Lists of television series episodes. (If you review that category, you can see that there are quite a few other series-episode subcategories filed there. And the fact that there's only one episode written up so far isn't really relevant, if people clearly intend to write up more of them.) Whether that's the best way to organize them or not is worth discussing (and truth be told, I'm still pretty unconvinced that most TV series episodes really deserve their own articles at all), but what I did with that category is consistent with the way these things are currently handled on Wikipedia. But if you'd like to propose or implement a better filing scheme for these things, feel free. Bearcat 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Category sorts
I beg your pardon; I was not targeting anyone's actions in particular, nor intending to revert...just tidying away. Carry on. Cheers - Her Pegship 23:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists
I removed:
 * Category for all lists to be filed under subcategories.
 * Lists from List of lists and Wikipedia Almanac should be classified in one of the subcategories here.

Both comments are confusing and poorly written. The second comment I believe was about two years old, and related to the initial creation of the category. The two pages mentioned no longer exist. I think both lines try say that the lists should only be categorized in the subcategories. You have been discussing this on the talk page, which is an apropriate place to discuss how things are categorized. When you have moved all the lists into subcategories, it will be pretty obvious that all the lists are in the subcategories. Until then, it would be confusing to read these comments yet see dozens of lists that are not in the subcategories. I think it is important that the comments left on category pages make sense for casual users of Wikipedia, and neither of these did, so I removed them. -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, need your help. Have you seen the individual articles of Danny Phantom Episodes. I have seen them to be lost or maybe even erased. I saw your name in the history box. (203.215.120.65 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Lists (category)
Hi Jeff! By coincidence, I've got Category:Lists open as we speak, looking for a deeper category. I can't find one yet, but I am looking. Any helpful tips? I was also planning to spend a bit of time at List of lists/uncategorized, but if that's a problem for you, please let me know. Cheers ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Mass media lists"? I would never have guessed that one, to be honest. But I've taken your advice and moved it there. As for suggestions on the list categorising process, I can only say that the donkey-work of finding the right cat list is a distraction from writing and editing articles: the list category names are non-obvious for what subcats come underneath them. Someone on an editing roll, trying to be help out by categorising an uncategorised article, has to stop dead and spend maybe 20 minutes going into each list cat to see what's underneath. The list cats themselves don't even have much in the way of useful text at the top to give an editor a hint of what the category is about. And, as I've found, heaven help the poor editor who gets it wrong! ;)


 * I think I'll leave you to it at Cat:Lists - doesn't look like a place that I can help out at. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 19:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Please don't add pages to the main Lists category
I hit submit when I meant to hit preview, so as to click and browse. I didn't see the big deal so I left it sit, since then it'll be brought to people's attention. I think it's a bad idea to discourage people from putting things in general categories, because it just discourages them from doing anything, so articles just don't get categorized. The fact that people jump all over people for putting things in general categories is actually a sign that general categories are closely watched, and articles get properly categorized quickly, by people who actually are familiar with the system. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera categories
Hi Jeff and greetings from the Opera Project.

I wonder if you can explain to me why you changed the category on the The Opera Corpus from Category:Culture lists|Opera Corpus to Category:Operas|*. The latter category - as far as I know - is only for individual opera titles, not for lists. Can you let me know your thinking on this? And also why you removed the Category:Culture lists|Opera Corpus? I thought major lists were wanted there. Thanks and regards. Kleinzach 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeff, thanks for the explanation.


 * I agree that the article should be in Category:Opera-related lists (unfortunately opera-related lists is a subcategory of music-related lists which is wrong - it should be in performing arts - but that is by the way).


 * However using Category:Opera is consistent with what we have done up to now. Category:Operas has been used for a different purpose (individual titles). Unless you can see any other problems with this, I'd like to change it back to Category:Opera. (The List of Operas is an anomaly, by the way.) Thanks and regards.


 * Kleinzach 21:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff. I have come back from the far north! There is a comment on my Talk page underneath your last comment. Is it from you? - Kleinzach 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Opera is under performing arts, not (classical) music. This is explained on the Opera Project page. By the way, I have now fixed the Opera cats so that they are now consistent. Regards - Kleinzach 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand what you mean: The 'Opera' cat is linked to the following: Classical music | Fine arts | Musical forms | Musical genres | Performing arts | The arts | Theatrical genres | Vocal music. Multilateral links basically, which seems sensible enough. However if you look at the Opera Project (which says that Opera is an independent WikiProject listed under Performing Arts), you'll see how the categories have basically been structured. (Lists go into the top opera category with miscellaneous items. There aren't many of them.)

In answer to your question: "Do you think I should create a Performance Arts related lists category and put Opera-related lists under that in additon to being under the Music-related lists category?" I don't really feel that is necessary. My understanding is that we want to have all the opera categories converging on opera, so 'opera terminology' is an 'opera' cat. not a 'terminology' cat.

There are of course a number of outstanding problems with the categories (notably the genres) but that is probably inevitable given the way wikipedia works!

Kleinzach 20:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

List
No I didn't see the note at the top, but regardles that's still a highly unorganized way to run a category, no other category in Wikipedia is set up like that, also chances are if I didn't look at it many other people won't eithier, I suggest we just go with a traditional alphebeatized list like any other category. Deathawk 17:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Temp page
Thanks for letting me know; I've moved it. -- ran (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Irish-Americans Should be Category?
On 8/4/05 you added this list to Category:Lists that should be categories with the, to me, cryptic comment "Fix backwards link from category." Is this what you really intended to do, and if so, do you still think that that list should be a category? --JeffW 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the cryptic comment meant, but it reminded me that there should be a link from the category to the list, which I've just added. The list is out of sync with Category:Irish-Americans and the information would be easier for editors to maintain and readers to access if there were a single unified list.  I would seriously consider merging them.  I'm normally in favor of categories, since you only have to make one edit to add/remove someone, whereas for lists you should update both the list and the article (to provide a backlink).  The annotations that the list provides are nice, but occupation headers could be converted into subcategories, and the facts listed next to each entry could be copied or moved to the biography articles themselves.  -- Beland 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For future reference
(with the "2006 March 30" replaced with whatever the date you want and "keep" replaced with whatever the result text you want displayed is)

Cheers! --Syrthiss 15:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I havn't
If you had taken you time to look at the pages you would have seen that they are different from the category pages and that the List of Incomplete Doctor Who serials is my redesign which is alsomentioned on my talk page.

Please take another look, Mollsmolyneux 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Themed timelines
Replied on my talk. - brenneman  {L}  23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I know that I could have replied here and it doesn't make that much sense to levea message saying that I've replied, but I'm trying to work out a system for keeping conversations together and this is what it is right now...
 * And again. - brenneman  {L}  01:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi,

thanks for pointing out I could use speedy delete. For some odd reason I thought SD only applied to pages in the main namespace. Thanks again. --Gennaro Prota 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Yes, I did check the talk page. Just trying to help with your dilemma. I have reverted all my edits. Her Pegship 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the term is too vague. When I saw that I originally thought it meant the form of the list, not the item(s) listed. "Lists by format" might be a little more clear, although frankly, the few items in  are actually reference lists, wouldn't you say?
 * My suggestion for the hierarchy would be:
 * Lists
 * "Lists by " could stay where they are
 * (new sub-cat)
 * Year lists, etc.
 * (rename to and put everything from  in there)
 * (new sub-cat)
 * "-related list"s
 * Just my 2cents. I didn't want to get into anything too involved on the talk page, but since you asked - ! Cheers, Her Pegship 22:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. Please ignore my comment about "Lists by form". I had to stare it it for a while - I must be having a mommy moment. Carry on! Her Pegship 13:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Cited Authors Bios page
I'm not sure why this page is a problem. It is a subpage of a talk page that is in almost constant controversy. The credentials of authors are frequently in question. We assembled this page as a place to point people to so that discussions can be kept under control. We have similar pages that allowed us to move the article forward. I believe they have continuing utility.

What confuses me is that I thought that was what talk subpages were for. No one should confuse them with regular articles. Could you point me to the policy that says this is not acceptable? --CTSWyneken 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I merged the subpage from the Main article namespace back into the Talk namespace. I hope that is sufficient.

BTW, did you mean to list the same subpage twice on my talk page? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  03:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate is also distilled from the Talk subpages. I tried to blank the page, but a bot reverted it. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  03:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried it again, this time with a brief explanation rather than a blank page. Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  03:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I was unaware that the page had been copied or moved to be a subpage of the main article. I thought it was attached to the talk page, which is where I put it in the first place. Sorry for the confusion. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your favourite saying is highly offensive
I agree with you on category:Disney Channel original movies, but I must say I find the hobgoblin saying (which you use often unless I am confusing you with someone else) extremely offensive, and I might easily have changed my vote to spite you as it is a marginal case. It comes across as a personal attack, even if you don't think it should, and I would urge you to try very hard to resist using it. You may think it is light-hearted, but to people on the receiving end it is more likely to seem sneering and arrogant.Bhoeble 11:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Film/Movie controversy
Please know that I came into the film project late. I was not party to the origianl decision to use the word "film" over the word "movie." Had the word movie been chosen as the standard to use on Wikipedia, I would be as ferverent a supporter of it as I am of the word film now. However, with the word film being chosen before my time in the project, I will defend that usage in support of those who made the decision. All I am doing is trying to make sure that every category, article, and list that deals with films conforms with the naming convention. In my opinion it is far more appealing to see uniformity in a category listing.

Had the debate on the convention been ongoing when I arrived on the scene, I may have sided with the film people anyway. Had the film side lost, I would have used movie; though of course I would grumble about it.

I am defending a convention that I had no part in making but will propagate. I eagerly await your response on my talk page. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just figured out another reason why I love using the word film. It is so much easier to type. The keys for the word movie are all over the keyboard while only the f stands on the left side of the keyboard while i l m is on the right and i and m use the same finger to type them. Sure, when made plural, the s is on the left, but it is still easier when typing a long list to have 1 fewer keystroke per item.
 * I know that this is probably the lamest reason you have ever heard, but when coding my webiste, I became accutely aware of space taken up by unnecessary characters. I haven't worked on my site for a while, since there is still so much wrong with it and so much to rewrite to tighten it up, but if I can find shorter words to repace longer ones, even those not in normal usage, I will.
 * Every time the word movie is used over film, that is one additional byte added to the total space used by film articles; after 1,024 uses, a kilobyte; after 1,048,576 uses, a megabyte; after 1,073,741,824 uses, a gigabyte. Sure Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but who is paying for the hard drives? Think not only of the current articles and categories, but the stored history of each article. Every time an article is stored, that adds that much more to the hard drive space usage. Even this long message is going to take a bite out of it.
 * To give you an idea of just how a film listed with movie to disambiguate, I will use the film Powder (film). This film will be listed on 6 people pages (5 actors and the writer/director), on the list of science fiction films and in the 1995 in film article. It is also in two articles about albinos. In the future there could be many other articles that will point to this film such as Orphanages in film, Teachers in film, etc. The most lists it fits, the more bytes it would take up. I don't think it would ever reach 1,024 references, but one never knows. This film, by using the word film to disambiguate, saved 10 bytes, not including the stored history of those articles.
 * Oops, I didn't mean this to get this long, but you are a good and reasonable listener, so I hope you don't mind. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings. It is a policy proposal that I have written and would like to get opinions on. If you wish to stop by and let me and others know your throughs, please do. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of category:Anthropological categories of people
I have pointed out in the discussion that Category:Anthropological categories is a duplicate of Category:Anthropology, which contains a wide range of categories which are not about peoples. Osomec 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies
If I understand your vote correctly you're in violation of WP:POINT. You clearly know the policy, know this list contravenes it but are voting to keep. Yes, there are many bare lists on WP, and yes, they are all anti-policy. Doesn't mean you get to keep the ones you like just because so many others haven't been brought to the dancefloor yet.  Dei zio  talk 11:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read the policy and I don't think it was meant to apply to a list like this. If you read the whole sentence in WP:NOT you'll see that it doesn't apply to "structured lists," although It doesn't really say how that differs from a simple list.  In any case, this isn't a vote, so if the admin decides that my reasons violate policy he is free to discount it.  --JeffW 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the whole sentence several times. Imo the fact that the list here runs from 1 to 100 is an arbitrary, rather than structured categorisation based on the viewers or editors of Bravo and their opinions about movies. But I see you have a different interpretation which is cool, my main concern in any case like this is not that the list exists, but that it contains zero further information. That's what I want to see, not necessarily deletion.  Dei zio  talk 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

timelines vs lists
You did not leave your name, but I found you in my talk page history. No matter. My rationale was that are 'timeline' articles and categories for 'timelines' and 'lists' articles and categories for 'lists'. The list category does not have timeline articles and vise versa. Seeing an article out of place, I was just doing category organization work. Thanks Hmains 18:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

At the high level you mention, I agree, but not at these lower levels I hope. Thanks Hmains 19:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I left/put this article into Category:United States history timelines which is where such US timelines seemed to me to fit. I have done so now. I hope this is ok. Thanks Hmains 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Television series by company
They have been relisted...let's start anew, shall we? &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unisys
When this issue came up before I looked at some of the other articles on similar companies and I couldn't see any difference in style from the IBM article for instance. If there are any particlular issues of style rather than fact it would be better if you would help fix them rather than pasting a derogatory label on the article. And do you for a fact know that those companies are no longer clients of Unisys? I believe WaMu at least still is. Please respond here, I hate having conversations spread out on two different web pages. --JeffW 07:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The IBM article is not exactly what I would call well-written, but the Unisys article had long segments (those that I highlighted) which sounded like they were lifted directly from a public relations file. I don't have time to personally fix all of the articles on the site, but I did edit the Unisys article on the train ride home this evening, to fix the highlighted sections.
 * You mention that you work with the Unisys product MCP (Burroughs Large Systems) every day. Are you a Unisys employee or customer?  I left some notes on Talk:Unisys about some PR items that could possibly be turned into encyclopedic prose with some additional information. -- Beland 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was an employee but was laid off a few weeks ago. It's funny that I seem to have less time to play on Wikipedia than I did while I was working.  --JeffW 03:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetizing categories at the bottoms of articles
Sure, thanks for pointing out those discussions to me; I wasn't aware that they existed. AZ t 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is discussion on sorting cats at the bottom of articles?
A item was recently added to Talk:IBM by a bot that has something to do with flagging items for Peer Review and one of the things that the bot suggested was to sort the categories alphabetically. I wanted to add a note to User:AndyZ's talk page (AndyZ seems to be responsible for the bot) that there is no consensus for this action but I can't find the discussion now. --JeffW 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It has already been agreed that alphabeticising by bot is not acceptable as there is widespread and strongly felt opposition to alphabetical sorting. Bots should only be used for non-controversial tasks. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Chicheley 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not a bot, nor am I alphabetizing any categories in articles. I have simply written a JavaScript which can be accessed by anyone - User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js - and have gotten rid of the category alphabetization note as mentioned above. Thanks, AZ t 00:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing that. It wasn't clear from your note above if you actually made the change or were just thinking about it.  --JeffW 02:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories
The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidate
I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.

As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.

Thank you!

—Markles 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Category of "women writers" under review for reinstatement
Hi! I hope you will pardon this notice, but the category "women writers" was recently deleted and is now up for deletion review. I noticed that you commented on an earlier discussion about "women" as a qualifier in categories and thought that you might like to know about the current discussion. scribblingwoman 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of The Wire episodes
Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: SF Fans
There has been another a call for discussion for the deletion of the Science Fiction fans category.Shsilver 22:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lists of anime television series episodes
I have nominated lists of anime television series episodes for renaming to lists of anime episodes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Dino guy  1000  19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Buddhist-related lists
I have nominated buddhist-related lists for renaming to buddhism-related lists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lists of sitcom television series episodes
I have nominated lists of sitcom television series episodes for renaming to lists of situation comedy television series episodes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Timelines by event type
Category:Timelines by event type, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Table of lunar month correspondences for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Table of lunar month correspondences is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Table of lunar month correspondences until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Carolina wren (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Timelines of recent events
Category:Timelines of recent events, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BDD (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)