User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive11

The Muppets categories
I find your closure of the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_24 premature. Jc37 and Jedi94 made significant changes to the proposal the day before your closure, which is not sufficient time to discuss them. Jc37 also responded to one of my comments at the same time, and I did not have sufficient time to argue against it. I feel that the case against this move did not get sufficient hearing. I would ask that you revert the moves and reopen discussion for a wider consensus. Powers T 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opposition was noted from earlier in the discussion. The fact that you also opposed the alternate renames would not have changed the outcome. If you disagree, though, WP:DRV is available.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Move review is probably better, I think. ;)  Please see Move review/Log/2013 January 4.  Thanks.  Powers T 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Education-related terms
Thank you for informing me regarding the proposed name changes for this category. I agree that standardization is helpful and agree with changing the name to Category:Education terminology Dbiel (Talk) 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations of works by author
Hi Mike, Happy New Year!

Following Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_3 you might want to nominate the top three in Category:Adaptations of works by writer, and all the national sub-cats of the Film cat, for the "writer" treatment. I assume you use an automated tool for such nominations? – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC on categorization by place by year
I wrote up a discussion of what I though were the salient points on this issue and put it on the Village Pump policies page about 2 days ago. No one has commented at all yet, and I was wondering if there was something I should do to make it more known the disucssion existed, or if I should just be more patient. I have never done an RFC before and so really do not know if I did the right thing at all. Any helpful pointers would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me where?--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is here Village pump (policy) at item 16.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of English List A limited-overs cricketers


The article List of English List A limited-overs cricketers has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not sure of the point of this list! Players are normally listed by the team they played for, besides, a few thousand English cricketers have played List A cricket, making this list if ever completed way to big! Impossible task, dealt with by sub-listing players by team e.g. List of Cornwall CCC List A players.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Curious as to your reasoning
On the closing of the CfD for Category:Songs by Japanese idols as "merge". There wasn't consensus at all in that discussion as there were two people indicating the category should be renamed to be more clear and two indicating it should be merged. There was also one who didn't really indicate one way or another specifically, but his comments led me to believe he was supporting renaming. That's not even close to a consensus, being quite evenly divided. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 08:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you have a discussion that's divided, it pays to look at the reasoning on all sides. In this case, I was persuaded by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's reasoning that "At the present, every single song or artist with songs in this category is described as J-pop." If you disagree, may I suggest you bring it up on WP:DRV?--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

CfD backlog
I noticed CfD seems to be developing a bit of a backlog. I helped clean it out some, but was wondering if you could take a look at this and see if it's ready to be closed? I have a couple of other categories I've spotted that appear to need merging along similar lines but don't want to nominate them with this still outstanding. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Going through the rest as time permits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Roads by year of opening
Hi Mike. When you closed the CfD on Roads by year of opening (yesterday) you forgot Category:Roads opened in 2001 which had been added a day after the start of the CfD but wasn't listed at the top. While you're at it, I think it also makes sense to delete Category:20th-century road openings and Category:21st-century road openings which are now empty because of the CfD and unlikely to be repopulated given the general unpopularity of the idea of sorting roads by year of opening. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the catches.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what you wrote,
"even" in D&D a female sorcerer is a sorceress. (And also witches are separate from sorceresses.) --Niemti (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In other words, totally should be renamed. (And all 3 male categories should be also grouped into just 1.) --Niemti (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

...or else I've got to create a separate category for sorceresses. Which is exactly an opposite of what I've been aiming for. --Niemti (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. I think I know my Dungeons & Dragons, though. Sorcerer is a class that both male and female characters can achieve; clearly, female characters can use the list of Sorcerer spells, for example. Females can certainly be wizards too. Anyway, it's clear that some redistribution should be done, but folks were not in agreement on what. My suggestion is to nominate a smaller subset (say, combining wizards and sorcerers on a gender-neutral basis, like Category:Fictional necromancers) and see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Or I'll just make one for sorceresses. --Niemti (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried, you know? --Niemti (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did,, but just makes no sense (just as having separate wizards and sorcerers, and also warlocks). Please re-open both again. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not have been the response I would have suggested, but someone else can decide whether to bring that category (or any of the others) up for merging.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I decided. Would you? --Niemti (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By someone else, I meant "not you and not me." Anyway, I think we're done here. Good luck with your editing!--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Media close
Can you review your close here? I'm not sure that one oppose and one support with one comment not supporting and withdrawn, with concerns, constitutes support. Given that the discussion seems to support a difference between print and broadcast media, the best solution here may depend on the actual articles. Not sure what would be an improvement, but the old name is probably more inclusive them the new one. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the close. Other than you, there doesn't seem to be anyone objecting to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that my concerns and the other discussion by choster about needed cleanup were sufficient to be more material then the reasons in support. If nothing else, the needed cleanup should have been completed first.  Also several areas were noted, and there are probably more, that are correctly not classified by city but by market and those needed to be addressed individually.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do any needed cleanup. Thanks for your attention to detail.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So for the cases where the market is more correct, recreation is permitted? I'm assuming that if recreated, one child would be the newly created by city. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would be in direct contravention of my close.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

CFD talkback
-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

States of the Southern United States
While you have decided to delete Category:States of the Southern United States, you are not deleting Category:States of the Western United States or Category:New England states. I shall say “Disagree” not “Comment” next time. Hugo999 (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because I didn't notice Category:States of the Western United States existed. I will nominate it. New England, however, is very clearly defined, so I'm not sure whether it would survive a nomination to delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the Western US nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles
For starters, you pretty clearly don't understand "no consensus". Something that is closed as no consensus can be immediately renommed by anyone, so three months is three months more than needed. Also, why shouldn't that category be at Category:Los Angeles? Wikipedia's naming conventions seem to dictate that a) titles should be as short as possible, and b) categories should have the same name as their catmains p  b  p  16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this on the CFD page, thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

19nn in Northern Ireland
Hi Mike

Thanks for closing Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_22.

Did you mean to close it as "delete all", or as "delete up to 1919, but keep 1920"? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I was going by the date of the partition, and missed that. I will try to figure out what goes back into the 1920 category, but your help would be appreciated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at Cyedbot's contribs, I think that the categ must have ben empty apart from its subcats. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A Semi Protection Request
Hello Mike I hope its ok for me to ask you something in your talk page. I didn't know (sorry for that) That only administrators could add a semi protection icon on articles. So I accidentally added one. Could you please add this icon pp-semi-blp on the Trevor Moore article please, to prevent vandalism? Thanks a lot. Have a nice day.Maxcat000 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I protected it for three days. We'll see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help, how kind. Best Regards. Maxcat000 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Space program/mes CfD
Please could you clarify your rationale and !vote weighting for your closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_29; It seems very clear to me that there was no consensus, so I am confused as to how you determined that a positive result was achieved. Thanks -- W.  D.   Graham  07:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Five votes for program, two for programme, one for "standardize to either one." Seems heavily weighted to "program" to me, but if you disagree, please bring it up on WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to discuss the matter with you, as the closing administrator, before taking any further action, which I would hope not to be necessary. Since decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule, I am dismayed that you seem to have just counted !votes and had done with it - an administrator's role is to weigh the arguments as well as seeing who supports them. My count was four !votes to three in favour of "program"; Fayenatic london, Oculi, John Pack Lambert and the IP supported option 1, while myself, Johnbod and Sowlos supported option 2 (although myself and Johnbod both expressed opposition to either set of moves). I would argue that since Sowlos' rationale were based on a misinterpretation of ENGVAR and John's comment was more a nationalistic rant than anything to do with content, those two !votes should not be assigned much weight. I'm curious as to how you would interpret this. -- W.  D.   Graham  20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've made my position clear. Feel free to explore other options.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While I have my own opinions on the issue, I was only looking for an explanation for a discussion outcome that I saw as surprising given the discussion that took place; I do not wish to take the matter to deletion review until I understand the rationale behind making it; if all viewpoints were accorded proper weight then I have no problem with the outcome standing. It is a basic expectation that administrators are accountable to the Wikipedia community and per the Betacommand ARBCOM case they are expected to respond "promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions". I therefore feel that I am entitled to an explanation as to what extent the discussion and rationale that accompanied !voting on this matter was considered in coming to the final decision, and if it was not considered, why a long-serving administrator would base their closure of a debate based solely on simple majority voting. -- W.  D.   Graham  21:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I read all the comments and considered all of them. Sometimes, the majority is right. In this case it was. There were points made on the "program" side that I felt were stronger. In addition, there were more people on that side. So that's the direction I went. Does that answer your question?--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Out of interest, what would you normally view as the threshold for consensus? -- W.  D.   Graham  12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If I feel there's a consensus to do something. It's not always what the majority requests, but very often it is. The one thing I can be certain of is that someone will be unhappy, and instead of doing nothing, I choose to do something and accept that conversations like this will occur thereafter. Does that answer your question?--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
...William 16:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Bungalows
OK, everything was split and the existing categories deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated!--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Help
I want to write about a tennis player and sports journalist. Please create a page named Farid Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeeshanRehman1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can do that yourself. Go here: Starting an article.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Stonehenge not an open source game to the best of my knowledge
Hi Mike, I enjoyed your stuff back when I played D&D. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to add Stonehenge to the category 'Open source tabletop games'. To my knowledge, Stonehenge isn't under any open source licence or otherwise free from copyright restrictions. Cheers, --Sanglorian (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, when I created the game, we released it as open source, in that anyone can write material for it, as long as they don't charge for it. Here's my description of the game on the Paizo site, where I describe it as open source. Anyway, I shouldn't be editing that article, so make whatever changes you feel are appropriate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you say there was no consensus on Category:Fictional American people of Dutch descent
There was only one person who disagreed with the deletion, and they did not even address the issue of the category being trivial, with no evidence that it was a notable intersection. Why in the world was it kept when 5 people wanted it to go?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read my close, you'll see why. You can't delete only one subcategory when the rest of the tree remains intact. Nominate the whole tree, and we'll see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Depeche Mode members
Category:Depeche Mode members, 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. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Zimbabwean fraudsters
Category:Zimbabwean fraudsters, 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. Babakathy (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous peoples of India
On 14 January 2013 you have removed the CFD tag from Category:Indigenous peoples of India. Does that mean, that you have implemented this CFD closure and moved every appropriate page to Category:Scheduled Tribes of India? If yes, than this category need to be deleted by adding it to the appropriate section of WP:CFDW. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 23:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird. Fixing now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Randles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Randles 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/Paul Randles 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 high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Members of the 29th House of Representatives of Puerto Rico. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25#Category:Rape_victims
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_25. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Get Bit


The article Get Bit has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not establish importance. Alternatively, merge to TableTop and delete or redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GSK ✉ ✓ 08:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4#Category:African_people_of_Arab_descent
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_4. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps
Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)