User talk:Deisenbe/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Category:John Bucchino has been nominated for discussion
Category:John Bucchino, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Lowry
A couple of Lowry clippings: [1] [2] [3]Jacona (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Category work
I've noticed your category work: here's a disambiguation page that you might be interested in. Carver High School. Jacona (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is indeed useful. Are you monitoring my Contributions? Qwirkle apparently does. deisenbe (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
categories, again
Hello again Deisenbe, we chatted before about the Statuary Hall Collection. Let me add that politically, we are probably of one mind on the general evil of the Confederacy, and it's great if you're doing work in this area.
That said - from a Wikipedia perspective - your idea of how categories work doesn't line up with the actual policy. Categories are part of article content. You commented before that it'd be handy to just add a category to people with statues in the National Statuary Hall rather than add some prose, but that isn't how things work on Wikipedia; either the statue is relevant enough to mention in the article directly, or it isn't and shouldn't be added as a category either. It's the same issue with minstrel shows. Maybe they are related to the Lost Cause, but currently, that is not in the article at all. See WP:CATV:
- Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.
Second, even if a section on minstrel shows & their relation to the Lost Cause was added in prose with reliable sources, it would still need to pass the "defining aspect" requirement. That seems a stretch as well, since as we can both agree, minstrel shows predate the Confederacy. SnowFire (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, and it absolutely applies to categories as well ("Categorization of articles must be verifiable"). If you think there should be a category exception, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but I wouldn't get your hopes up, because that could mean adding any article to any category, even blatantly false categories, and there being no good way to contest this. (e.g. why not add minstrel shows to Category:Anti-racism? Sure, I don't have any sources to back that up, but with your change, that wouldn't necessarily stop me.) SnowFire (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Verifiability I'm all for, but that is not the same as explicitly saying in the article that it belongs in that category. If there were a category of "Tall U.S. presidents," one could include Lincoln in it, without the article saying explicitly that he was very tall. deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's where I'm saying you are wrong: it is the same. The venerability criterion for article content and for categories is one and the same. If Wikipedia articles on Lincoln never discussed his height, then such a hypothetical category should NOT be placed for the same reason that "Short U.S. presidents" shouldn't be placed either: it isn't backed by sources and it isn't discussed in the article. Mamadou N'Diaye (basketball, born 1993) has a reference on his height as well as his physical condition, and that's why he's placed in Category:People with gigantism. If somebody hypothetically dropped the Category:People with gigantism category on a random person whose height isn't discussed in the article, it would be removed for failing WP:CATV. SnowFire (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- In Category:Schools accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, in the following no mention is made in the article of the accreditation: Academy for Jewish Religion (California), Allan Hancock College, American Jewish University, American River College, Antioch University Los Angeles, Antioch University Santa Barbara, Assumption Seminary. And that's just the letter A. Should they be removed from the category? deisenbe (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's where I'm saying you are wrong: it is the same. The venerability criterion for article content and for categories is one and the same. If Wikipedia articles on Lincoln never discussed his height, then such a hypothetical category should NOT be placed for the same reason that "Short U.S. presidents" shouldn't be placed either: it isn't backed by sources and it isn't discussed in the article. Mamadou N'Diaye (basketball, born 1993) has a reference on his height as well as his physical condition, and that's why he's placed in Category:People with gigantism. If somebody hypothetically dropped the Category:People with gigantism category on a random person whose height isn't discussed in the article, it would be removed for failing WP:CATV. SnowFire (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Verifiability I'm all for, but that is not the same as explicitly saying in the article that it belongs in that category. If there were a category of "Tall U.S. presidents," one could include Lincoln in it, without the article saying explicitly that he was very tall. deisenbe (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy, and it absolutely applies to categories as well ("Categorization of articles must be verifiable"). If you think there should be a category exception, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but I wouldn't get your hopes up, because that could mean adding any article to any category, even blatantly false categories, and there being no good way to contest this. (e.g. why not add minstrel shows to Category:Anti-racism? Sure, I don't have any sources to back that up, but with your change, that wouldn't necessarily stop me.) SnowFire (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
(de-indent) Strictly speaking? Yes, according to WP:CATV, there is a problem here. However, there's two potential fixes for WP:V issues:
- The unreferenced content (whether it be category, claim, quote, statistic) is removed.
- Appropriate citations are added. (In the case of a category, that would also include adding to the article itself something that indicates the school is accredited with a reference.)
As a sheer matter of pragmatism, Wikipedia tolerates a lot of unreferenced content - only featured articles are really completely compliant with all the referencing demands hypothetically. I expect that citations will come eventually for 98% of those colleges, so no hurry, they'll be fixed by option #2. However, let's say for the sake of argument that for one of those schools I decided to dispute the category in good faith - i.e. I don't think the college really is accredited by the Western Association, and some other editor thought it was. The rules come into strict force when there's a dispute between two editors, and the way to tiebreak is clear per WP:PROVEIT:
- The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
In other words, if that college really was accredited, let's see a citation, or it stays out. If there's a dispute over whether Lincoln should be added to the "Short U.S. presidents" category, then this provides the "correct" behavior we want - the editor trying to add that category isn't able to support it via a citation that Lincoln was secretly really short, so the incorrect category isn't included. If the "tall" category was added then disputed, it should be trivial to just fix it and add a citation.
Going back to minstrel shows specifically - I'm disputing the category addition here (and not for random colleges) because I don't think it is citable, I think it's comparable to calling Lincoln a short president. If you want to add it back, add some content sourced to reliable sources first on the topic - although even then, this is just a level 1 step, there will also be the "category scope" issue from WP:OVERCAT to deal with even if we had some cited content on the topic. But until there's citations, we aren't even that far. SnowFire (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you've decided to try to associate this organization with the US confederacy. I've corrected the error. Please don't do it again. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morris Jacob Raphall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:American cult movies has been nominated for discussion
Category:American cult movies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American cult movies
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:American cult movies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 deleted 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Navbox Thomas Dixon Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
new user created it in error and requested deletion in WP:Teahouse
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
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 deleted 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. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 10:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Could you help us with this?
There's a minor issue with an expansion of Battle of Fort Pillow you performed over a year ago. Could you weigh in? BusterD (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
|
Hi Deisenbe! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Educational institutions established in 1787 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)