User talk:RevelationDirect/Archive 2015

= 2015 =

Category:Streets in San Antonio, Texas
Deleted. Just remember that any new page can be speedy deleted by G7, user-requested, if you're the only contributor. You don't have to tag it for deletion; you just have to let an administrator know that you want it to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Medieval mythology
Moved—
 * "Category:Medieval mythology
 * Propose deleting medieval mythology


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Medieval mythology had two things in it, Draconcopedes and Christian Mythology. Draconcopedes is more accurately described as a legend since it was included in some medieval zoologies, so I added it to Category:Medieval legends. While Christian Mythology has a small amount of info about the Middle ages, the majority is not. I removed both things from the category because they didn't really belong there, and the category itself seemed redundant with Category:Medieval legends existing. So with nothing in it Currently, I think it is a good candidate for deletion. If it is felt this a good category, I can move Draconcopedes back there. Perhaps some more articles should be listed there in that case. Lightgodsy (TALKCONT) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for giving background on what used to be in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

to Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 11 from Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 10.
 * Weak Support I suspect there may be a viable category here but, without a main article on Medieval mythology, it's impossible to know what to put in it or to know the difference between that and Medieval legends. No objection to recreating later if this topic is expanded on the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)"

Yesterday I forgot to tag the category with  (to officially nominate it for deletion) so the category was linking to Jan. 11th, not the 10th. Just wanted to let you know because I moved your comment and weak support along with my Nomination. I didn't want to move anything you wrote, without in good faith letting you know about it. Lightgodsy (TALKCONT) 12:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Perth
Category:Streets in Perth, 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. Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks provided my thoughts. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

nice!
thank you for your edits to the article i posted! #learning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.80.165 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help with categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Death in New York City
I don't know how you feel, but please take a look at another category up for deletion.

Category:Woodstock Festival CfD closed
For your information, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_14. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Purge completed per CFD outcome, and I made some other improvements to the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in category title
I have to thank you for properly categorizing the Black fraternal association (Rename to Category:African-American firefighting organizations to reflect the actual contents. This is well populated and a viable category despite the poor name.) I had simply named the category to house all the various chapters nationwide and hadn't thought out that it might fall under another category and parent. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Caldecott Medal winners
Recently you expressed doubt that should include those writers of the picture book text who were not also the illustrators. That is how I understand your doubt "that we should place author under it with Category:Caldecott Medal winners".

We do not include writers in the Caldecott Medal winners, as we should not. When extra biographies show up in the category --I know from experience with this award and also the British Kate Greenaway Medal and its -- those pages represent illustrators of runner-up Caldecott Honor Books rather than writers who worked with winning illustrators.

Just now I checked the category again and fixed two offending biographies of Honor Book illustrators. The 68 pages in the winners category again represent only illustrators who have won Caldecott Medals. --P64 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. and represent them completely in that we have pages for all winners (not true of the Greenaway Medal). --P64 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow-up. I was unsure about whether we should group people under Category:Caldecott Medal winners in general, not whether a few stray extra biography articles had been added in error. (My comment was more of an aside, since only the Category:Caldecott Medal-winning works was even up for discussion.)  was the one who raised the question about the author/illustrator and I'm sure he appreciates your cleanup. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Guano Island claims
Hi RevelationDirect,

I notice that you created the article entitled: List of Guano Island claims. A great article by the way!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Guano_Island_claims&oldid=312914244

When you did so, you only listed 8 of the 9 United States Minor Outlying Islands. I was wondering if there was a reason why you didn't list Wake Island.

In the six years since the article was created, nobody else has added it, so a part of me is thinking that there is a very good reason for that. However, I can't find out anywhere what is so different about Wake Island as to why it's not listed.

So I thought I'd raise it with you.

All the best,

Standingfish (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I haven't found any evidence that the US ever claimed Wake Island under the Guano Islands Act. It was a Spanish possession from the right of discovery until the U.S. took control of it with the right of conquest along with the Philippines and Puerto Rico in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. However it was not mentioned in the original Treaty of Paris (1898) ending that war and is only arguably included in the follow-up Treaty of Washington (1900). Because of that ambiguity, both Japan and the a faction in the Marshall Islands have asserted claims. Wake Island could use more of an explanation.


 * There's very little online material about the US Minor Outlying Islands though so, if you have better info than me, feel free to correct me. Nice to hear from someone else interested in obscure geography! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for answering that for me. I thought there would be a very good explanation and I wouldn't have raised it had the other 8 US Minor Outlying Islands not been mentioned in the article. I have also found there to be a lack of online information about the US Minor Outlying Islands. I'm very happy with your explanation. Thanks. Standingfish (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Post towns
Thank you for your comment. I have added further information to the CFD. The issue is ultiamtely, that the areas served by postal towns do not correllate with local government areas, nor do telephone area codes, which depend on which local exchange a phone was connected to, as the telephone system spread its tenatacles. Both were developed to suit the convenience of the Post Officce as provider, not according to pre-existing boundaries. There was a further system like this, but it is obsolete. Poor Law Unions were associations of parishes joining together to administer the poor law jointly through a Union Workhouse. These frequently straddled county boundaries, but in practice came to be divided into rural districts (originally rural sanitory authorities), which did not. This was probably because they had to report to the county magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Serbian's Outside of Serbia
Thanks! To be honest, I steer clear of these topics if I possibly can, and the only reason I got involved is because I was asked to help with the major edit warring issue that we had recently.

One of the editors had the same remark, i.e. that the Croatian subcategories were being populated far out of proportion. While this really appears to be the case, the categories strictly speaking cannot be populated out of proportion: either the article belongs to it, or it doesn't. But does it? So, I'd like to see the same criterion applied everywhere: even if, in the end, edit warriors can't be really dissuaded, vague definitions, differental treatment, and lack of existing consensus tend to aggravate the disputes. Is it workable for the Serbs in the same way as for e.g. the Italians? To be quite honest, I'm not sure - the backgrounds are different and are fairly complex - but maybe it's worth trying. GregorB (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:United Parcel Service
Hi Beland,

Way back in 2009 you speedy deleted this category because it was empty. Since then, quite a few articles have been created so I recreated the category to hold them. If you have any concerns, just let me know.

Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool, nice to see the growth in coverage.. Thanks for organizing that category. -- Beland (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Commons category template with no category set
You changed my nomination. I think by error, and you meant to change yours? Please take a look. Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, that was totally accidental but really obnoxious. I reinstated your vote and deleted my own! RevelationDirect (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No big deal - that's what I figured. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dry places in New Jersey
Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added my thoughts. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople DRV
Hello; I recently closed a discussion for the above category CFD here. A deletion review of the decision has been opened DRV here. I'm notifying you because you participated in the CFD. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added my thoughts. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fragaria categorization
If I look at a category whose name is a genus of plants, like Category:Fragaria, I expect to be able to check whether the list of species matches a reliable source of botanical information, like The Plant List, so that I can see if new articles are needed. Why does it matter whether the same target is categorized twice? It's helpful to readers and to editors. It's absolutely standard practice at WP:PLANTS to categorize scientific name redirects taxonomically. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The editing guideline is at Categorizing redirects which generally discourages redirects in categories. I get concerned with clutter when there are 5 or 6 redirects pointing to the same article or where most of the category is redirects. With the 2 or 3 duplicates here, I'm less concerned about it. If all/most of the articles are going to have a common name and a scientific name, the category should be split per Categorization of multiple taxonomies rather than held in the same category though.
 * If you feel those three aid navigation though, go ahead and add the redirects back in per the Alternative names for articles exception. Thanks for all your help in this area! RevelationDirect (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your general point, and I certainly hate "category clutter", including over-categorization. However, I do think that if an article is at the English name of the species (or other taxon), then the scientific name which redirects to this article should also be categorized, although other, alternative English name redirects for the species should not. In the case of strawberries, there would be a point in using Category:Strawberries for English names and Category:Fragaria for scientific names, since this is surely where most readers would expect to find them. For other genera, it's more difficult, since the English names don't always have a common element which would allow the easy creation of a category for the common names and a category for the scientific names. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Citrus
In the same vein, when checking which Citrus species are listed in the genus here, I consider it unhelpful that some species such as Citrus warburgiana are hidden in Category:Limes (fruit) along with non-species such as Blood lime. Please don't removed the Category:Citrus from the species and hybrid species: that is botanical information under the purview of WP:PLANTS, and has very little to do with the fact that some of these species have fruit that are used by humans. Categorization, if it is to be of any use at all, needs to duplicate the information structures that a reader would want to study. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. Most citrus hybrids were created to eat the fruit and the lime category is named to avoid confusion with Lime (material). This is also a little different than above because we're not talking about using redirects for an alternative categorization scheme but double listing the same article but I'm willing to adopt a similar strategy as above. To do that, I think we need to split out Citrus fruits as as subcategory from the Citrus genus, because Category:Citrus is really doing double duty right now. Let me know if you disagree with that approach and thanks for your guidance. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:Citrus should be used for titles that are Citrus species, whether the article or a redirect, as it's the normal "taxonomic categorization" explained at WP:PLANTS/Categorization. It would be possible to have a separate, parallel category or categories for citrus fruits with a culinary use, I guess. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would be helpful to have a separate (sub) category for citrus fruits with culinary use. Many of the species would then need to be both in the main category and the subcategory. There'd be a few difficult cases, like Citrus micrantha which is used as a hair treatment and not for eating. By the way, I believe that most of the useful Citrus hybrids were not created deliberately, but have been found as seedlings; the deliberate hybridization such as by the CSIRO in Australia, is relatively recent and requires considerable effort because apomixis means that very few hybrid seeds are produced. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted
Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added my thoughts. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers
You participated in the recent discussion which resulted in Category:Climate change skeptics being renamed to Category:Climate change deniers. The new category has now been nominated for renaming back to Category:Climate change skeptics. The new discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion for "skeptics and deniers" (which I just read in the archived discussion of the recent rename). Pity it did not garner more support. The "deniers" category seems to me needlessly contentious, and many people will read it as disrespectful. M.boli (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I liked your line about trying "to afford the usual BLP level of respect even if they are wrong." We're on the same page here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rite of Adoption
You actually need to take those additions out of those cats; Freemasons and Women Freemasons are not the same thing, and they're not going to make sense to any reader of the cat. It's not even a "lack of acceptance" - they're simply different entities. MSJapan (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely do not favor purging all the women from the Category:Freemasons tree. There are variety of Masonic organizations with different membership requirements: the Women's Grand Lodge Of France was exclusively female, Yellow Rose was coed, while the Shriners just had women's auxiliaries. Similarly, the Prince Halls admitted African American members while many others did not. The Roman Catholic church doesn't have female priests but that doesn't mean we purge Category:Anglican priests of women.
 * The real issue here is that we comingling members of the overall Masonic movement when there is a lot of variation between the different Masonic organizations. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me add a little more. If women belong in a category, they should be placed in that category. Obviously organizations that are male only are going to have male only categories in Wikipedia; that's just reflecting reality. But excluding women from categories in which they belong doesn't reflect reality. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the commingling part is the key - the average reader is going to be very surprised to see those entries in the cat. Also, most female Masonic organizations have "Women" in the title.  As for the co-eds, being in OES does not make a woman a Freemason, it makes her a member of Star.  So there are important differences in titles.  Perhaps the key is to figure out what the self-referential title is - if they themselves call themselves "Women Freemasons", then that is the accurate title.  I'd honestly like to avoid commingling, so it might make more sense to make Women Freemasons a child cat of Freemasons, because at least the relationship would be there, as well as preserving the distinction? MSJapan (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a reply...
...at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 1 about Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Serneholt
If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some relevant categories, based on the current article. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite
Go Hokies (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oba Chandler
If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. It is a article that I have edited a lot over the years. So any improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That one was definitely less cheerful. Cleaned up the categories a bit. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Radio Lions


A tag has been placed on Radio Lions, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  samtar { t } 14:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Reserve Officers' Training Corps
Hello. Don't you think we should create a Category:Reserve Officers' Training Corps alumni?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually thought about that too; great minds think alike. But the articles I was looking at seemed like they were either notable for being a general or they were notable for something else and ROTC was just a passing reference along with what college they went to. Look at Colin Powell and Alan Alda to see what I mean. Maybe there are some other biographies I missed that ROTC membership is more defining? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about it today while I was creating Collins Denny, Jr.. There's no category for his ROTC service. Probably many people like that.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello RevelationDirect: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 02:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message