Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Welcome!

Hello, Vegaswikian, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 17 March 2005 (UTC-5)

Contents 1 Cat discussion closure 2 ((cat handler)) 3 Museum cats 4 Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Category:Suicide sites 5 Request for comment 6 Playa move

[edit] Cat discussion closure

Consensus, I'm sure you will agree, is established by strength of argument, not by number of people exprerssing an opinion. Given this, and the fact that closure as no consensus is, in effect, a closure in favour of those seeking no change, I was surprised by your decision in this discussion, especially as the main argument proposed against the proposal were an appeal to a "convention" that was deprecated as the grounds for a speedy change, and therefore not a convention that is either widely kept or agreed in the discussion at WT:CfD. I'd be interested in your observations. Kevin McE (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ((cat handler))

Hi Vegaswikian. I have responded to your message over at Template talk:Cat handler#Default supression in main name space. And I'd like to know if I understood your message right.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Museum cats

Hey - IIRC, we talked a bit when I was walking through the Nevada museums. WP:Museums put a bit of time into coming to a working consensus on the way forward for museum cats in early summer. Several of us have been going through all of the states cleaning this up. So how do we keep track of the CFD's you've been commenting on without looking at *all* the CFD's? There's just too many of them for someone who's not actually interested in categories per se. I'm happy to comment on the ones I become aware of, but to some degree, if it's museum cats, we should involve the WP:Museum team as well. Any ideas? dm (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Category:Suicide sites

While your close for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Category:Suicide sites does, refreshingly, offer a rationalization for your choice of deletion, you appear to have misinterpreted and misrepresented both my argument for retention as well as fundamental Wikipedia policy. WP:CAT states that "[i]t should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". All of the articles included in the deleted category include sections describing the location as a suicide site and provide multiple reliable and verifiable sources showing that these are locations where as many as hundreds of suicides have occurred. The category allows for navigation across articles that share a rather clear and defining common characteristic. Your argument that "The keep arguments seem to say that we need reliable sources for inclusion. Well, we can't do that with categories. You can do that in a list..." is an argument that says that the entire category system should be uprooted and deleted, without any specific relevance as to why this particular category fails a criteria that no category passes. Whether it's Category:Belgian opera singers or Category:Bishops of Mashonaland or the Category:Suicide sites you arbitrarily chose to delete, Wikipedia policy requires that every entry in every category must be supported in the accompanying article with "verifiable information in the article" as to why it was placed in that category. In the arsenal of an admin CfD admin, a closing argument that applies to every single category in Wikipedia only invites perpetuation of past abusive and arbitrary closes. I ask you to reconsider your close as no consensus and to offer explanations as to why WP:V and WP:RS should be ignored at CfD and how any category can survive the arbitrary insistence that it should be deleted with a "listify close to the existing list". Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Playa move

Where was the renaming/move of Playa discussed? Vsmith (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)