User talk:Black Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Black_Falcon.
Please click here to leave me a new message.
Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Sections with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved.

Archives


Contents

[edit] Service award categories

Thought you might be interested in this discussion since you were heavily involved the last time these were brought to DRV. What do you think the proper course of action is? We stop watching user categories like a hawk for a while and look what happens... VegaDark (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems I'm coming to the party a bit late, but I wanted just to say that I think you handled the matter very well. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - Glad to see you are back in regular editing mode. I just nominated a smattering of new user categories, in case you would like to add your .02. I'm also continuing work on the UCFD/CFD/DRV user category history listing on my sandbox in case you had any ideas. I was thinking of possibly changing the format before I got too far along. Ideally I think I would like a sortable list that has the discussion type (DRV or regular discussion), date, topic (for instance, "Wikipedians by website", i.e. the list would do the job of the topical index if you sorted it by type), the ability to color each entry green/yellow/red to signify good precedent, grey area precedent, and overturned precedent, and an expand/collapse box for discussions nominating multiple categories that would allow you to view each category that was actually at issue in the discussion if you choose to expand. That being said, I would have to look into creating a chart like that since I hardly know where to begin, and it would take a TON of effort to compile. It would be amazing when finished, however. VegaDark (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to have the time to be back, and I'll take a look at the recent CFD logs. A table of the type you describe indeed would be impressive, and it would supersede the topical index, but you're right that it would require a very large investment of time. Do you have in mind something like:
Type Date Topic1 Topic2 Category Outcome
CFD 2010-02-03 Jokes/nonsense Category:Wikipedians against kitten abuse Delete
CFD 2010-03-05 Advocacy Category:Wikipedians for Israel Delete
CFD 2010-03-30 Dislike Divisive Delete
Regardless, I'll gladly provide whatever assistance I can. Currently, I am focused mostly on continuing work on the 'Association football' category tree – when I nominated the main category for renaming in January 2010, I never imagined that, two years later, I'd still be trying to clean up and standardize the tree – and on fixing or improving various WikiProjects' category systems. Both tasks are moving along slowly... the former due to the sheer number of pages involved and the latter due to the need to consult WikiProjects prior to making significant changes to their internal categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That looks very good! I was just thinking that some entries would have more than one "topic" related to their deletion, so the addition of the second column is good. The one thing I would add is in the "Category" column the ability to insert a collapsible list (that in turn expands the height of that individual entry, if possible) that would be inserted for CfD nominations that included several entries, such as the service awards nomination that included 17 categories. If this isn't possible it could be included as a footnote at the bottom, but there would be a ton of footnotes. I'd also like to brainstorm anything else we might possibly want to see on this list and/or anything we might want the ability to sort by before it's started so nobody has to go back and change the entire thing if a good idea is thought up down the road. Perhaps I'll message Jc37 on the matter. I'm also slightly worried of the list getting too long, and no real good way to split it into multiple pages that I can see. VegaDark (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Collapsible lists for multi-category nominations is a good idea and should be doable – I'm not sure whether Template:Collapsible list works within tables, though I do know it works within infoboxes. The length of the list (and the size of the page) certainly would become an issue before long and some mechanism of splitting it would be needed, but I can't think of a good one either. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The only way I can think about splitting it would be by year (or couple of years) for each page - thus a sort would not get all similar categories under the same topic, but would require sorting over a few different pages if you wanted to check the entire history. Acceptable but not as nice as having it all on one page. I also just tried the collapsible list (see above), works very well, although perhaps we want the title centered. VegaDark (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I still read this and that, just haven't been signing in/editing much apparently. (Time really seems to be flying by.)
If you can catch me up with some related/relevant links, I would be willing to check things out and help as i can : ) - jc37 08:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you around again. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this was the only link I was hoping for your input on (changes to the chart, not the service award categories...that matter was already dealt with), but there are plenty of user category CFDs open right now (Most on the 16th) if you care to add your .02. VegaDark (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
One thing I'm concerned about, is that not every category (and the discussion(s) thereof) is this cut n dried. I am thinking about how I disagree with the true/false ratings at snopes, after reading the article, there are times that the rating clearly doesn't match. And since I would guess that the whole point of this (besides giving another way to help facilitate navigation for these), is to be able to look over these at a glance - I'm hesitant. And colours by their nature can introduce bias.
Of course, this problem isn't new to Wikipedia : )
What do you think? - jc37 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Gave this some further thought. I don't think my first reaction to compare this to snopes is as applicable as I initially thought. snopes isn't a wiki that anyone can edit to fix such possible problems : ) - jc37 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think with anything that has mixed or ambiguous precedent we can color code yellow, and be fairly generous if it's at all ambiguous (possibly with an explanatory note for each as well). Take a look at my sandbox for the current incarnation of the chart. VegaDark (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, what would be a good Wikipedia-space name for this to be under, and at what point should this be moved from my userspace to there? VegaDark (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Discussion history, although the name certainly isn't set in stone. 2012 is currently up to date, now to start working on the backlog... VegaDark (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Iglesia ni Cristo work group

It started as a successful proposal with the Council proposals page, but, like you have said, it never got a lot of attention. Unfortunately, according to Melton's "categorization" of denominations, it doesn't actually fit very well with any other groups, being one of the very few Christian groups (3 or 4 in total) which isn't included in any of the "families" of Christian traditions. I think the latter point was one of the reasons why it wasn't merged into any of the other extant Christian project groups. I wish I could offer more information, but, unfortunately, I really can't. Maybe, if the Filipino editors were to have an interest in it, we might be able to have a "Christianity in the Philippines" or maybe "Christianity in East Asia" group which might be able to take up the subject and some related ones. I honestly haven't checked on that myself though, and am not sure that there would be sufficient interest. It might involve adjusting the Christianity banner, but that is probably overdue as well. Maybe give me a few days to give me some time to think over the options, and I'll contact you then? John Carter (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. :) I appreciate your response and the background information is helpful. A work group involving members of WikiProjects Christianity and Philippines probably would be viable if there was enough interest. Both projects, the latter especially, appear to be quite active. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] OC

Sounds to me like WP:OC/U#vaguely defined should be listed at WP:OCAT, to be applicable to all cats in general. (Just change the word "user" to "individual".) - jc37 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the below, maybe? Now to just find supporting examples in cfd : ) - jc37 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Too broad or vaguely defined 
This includes any grouping of individuals on the basis of characteristics which cannot be readily identified, or which are defined so broadly or vaguely that one cannot draw meaningful conclusions about individuals based on their membership in the category.
I think you may be onto something there. :)
None of the types currently listed at WP:OCAT account for excessively broad or poorly limited categories; there may be some overlap with WP:DEFINING, but there are cases where a characteristic may be defining for a large portion of a category's members but still fail to set adequate limits on inclusion – the 'Public speakers' category is an example that springs to mind. I'll try ferreting out a few supporting examples by checking the CFD logs for the past year or so, which will also give me an opportunity to update the user category discussion topical index. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great. I have in the past often wondered if several of the inappropriate examples at OC/U should be more broadly applied at OCAT. (WP:UCAT#NOT for another example.)
Also, since I last looked at it, OCat has grown a bit. I merged two pretty much duplicate sections (trivia and trivial), and I'll try to work on it some more.
One thing that jumps out at me is that some of the sections are about the characteristics of the members of a category, and some about the characteristics of the category itself. Splitting the two concepts is probably a good idea, but I have a feeling if I do, I'll need to rewrite a chunk of the page for better clarity - which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing of course, but it would be a lot of work that I don't know if it's worth the effort. The page is likely clear enough as it is... What do you think? - jc37 04:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Huh... I hadn't noticed that before, but it does stand out now that you mention it: sections like WP:OC#DEFINING and WP:OC#OPINION relate to the characteristic being categorized, whereas ones such as WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL focus on the category itself. I don't know how useful it would be to make explicit this difference but I would recommend proposing on the talk page any major reorganization in order to reduce the chance of your effort being challenged and reverted.
I think your decision to merge the 'Trivial characteristics' and 'Trivial intersection' sections was a good one, as you managed to preserve the message of both sections by adding "unrelated or" before "wholly peripheral". I'm thinking, however, that the section title should be 'Trivial intersection or characteristics' since the two are distinct issues and a trivial intersection can consist of two or more non-trivial characteristics.
I can think of many instances when a 'not-based' section in WP:OC would have been applicable, but there may be some exceptions, such as Category:Vertebrates without jaws and Category:Films without speech. It is, without a doubt, worth considering, perhaps in a slightly more limited form. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I somewhat hesitate at a longer section title for aesthetic reasons : )
But besides that, I would think that having an object or subject and a characteristic of that object or subject is an intersection.
But I also accept that not everyone is going to "get" that, and since guidelines should be easy to understand, I'll weakly accept your suggestion (smile). - jc37 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
And point well taken about Not categories. Maybe focus it only on categories dealing with people? - jc37 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That seems reasonable; there are a few 'not'-based categories of people, but they seem to be in need of renaming, e.g., Category:Limbless people to Category:People with tetra-amelia syndrome. To borrow from you... now, to find some supporting examples. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Moscow Airways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Google books question

Hi Black Falcon. I saw your comments on Mike Cline's talk page and one thing really jumped out at me: "my own search of Google Books showed about three times as many hits for WTA (173K) as PW (57K)". Just wondering if you could check those numbers again because when I click on those links I get 5,900 for WTA and 16,500 for PW (and I'm in Australia, so surely there wouldn't be a problem with Brazilian POV). If our results for the same search really are so different I think I'll have to stop using gbooks hits at all in RMs. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks. When I search now (or click on the links), I can't reproduce my original results. Now, I see 6,280 hits for WTA and 16,500 for PW, which are much closer to the numbers you're seeing – though, still, there's no reason they shouldn't match. Incidentally, I noticed that searching for "War of the Triple Alliance" instead of "War of the triple alliance" adds 80 hits even though the search is supposed to be case insensitive. User:Wee Curry Monster's check on 26 January (diff) yielded a similar outcome to my original search (a ratio of 175–57), but even his links show different numbers now. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, very interesting. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Time on my hands

Ok, I have a feeling I may regret asking this of such a prolific editor : )

I find I have some time on my hands this evening.

Would you offer several suggestions on some things I might help with/find interesting? : ) - jc37 03:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehe... Villainc.svg ;)
I can suggest a few ideas – though I'm naturally biased toward the activities in which I'm involved or of which I'm aware – and perhaps one will catch your fancy:
If it's category-related work you're interested in:
WP:CFD has a 1–2 week backlog which could benefit from some extra attention;
Template:User language subcategory has a new option (see your original comment) that allows N-level to be hidden for non-natural languages;
I've proposed a change to WP:UCAT at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Mixing user and content categories;
Category:Association football by country probably should be populated with individual Football in {Country} categories;
Category:Women's association football clubs by country should be sorted by country name;
Special:WantedCategories contains a good number of categories which should be emptied or created; and
I recall that you're a member of WikiProject Comics, so this discussion may interest you.
You can also check Wikipedia:Database reports for general maintenance tasks, or WP:RFC#Request comment through talk pages for complicated content discussions.
Hmm... that's a rather odd collection, isn't it? :) Are you looking for something more particular, such as article improvement? -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Been working on the backlog, though some I have closed, and some I have commented in the discussion.
I'll have to check out the template and the UCAT discussion, thanks : )
not a big fan of sports related stuff, but if you would like help then, I'll see what I can do (please remember I don't have any automated tools, though I tried to get one going once, I never got back to playing with it).
I'll check out wantedcats
Saw that. The last consensus was to listify characters by power so that explanations of each characters usage/application of such powers could be explained. The after that, the "fancruft" cabal at AfD deleted the lists enmasse. So until the comics project gets a consensus that will hold up at AfD/CfD, there's no point in continuing the back n forth between ppl's rabbit gardens.
Thanks for the list, I'll start looking at them now : ) - jc37 04:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you found it useful. :) I'd forgotten that you don't have AWB, so please don't worry about populating Category:Association football by country (unless you really want to) ... that project will probably take 10–20 minutes using AWB, but probably twice or thrice that manually. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
lol ok - jc37 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
cfD backlog mostly dealt with : ) - jc37 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
And reciprocal, please of course feel free to check out my recent contributions for what I've been doing lately.
In particular, depending on any further discussion here, I may be asking for help tagging for CfD : ) - jc37 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Will do, and just let me know what you'd like tagged and when, and I'll be happy to oblige. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:People of Black African descent and all its subcats. Rdy when you are. - jc37 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall I exclude from tagging those categories, such as Category:Jews in the African diaspora‎ and Category:Siddi people, which do not fall into the 'Fooian people of Black African descent' format? Or, go ahead and post the nomination, and I'll tag all categories listed in the nomination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Stick to "Fooian..." I guess. Hoping that the rest already have a parent/container cat, and (more importantly) don't fall under the WP:OR/WP:BLP problem that the rest do.
I'll write up the nom, but would appreciate it if you could paste a list of those tagged, if easily possible. - jc37 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I tagged the following 'Fooian people of Black African descent' categories:

I also tagged the following two categories, which use 'of African descent' instead of 'of Black African descent'

I was not sure about and, thus, did not tag:

Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you.
Was going to list them all at nom in a collapsed box, but don't recall offhand the code, and besides, I think it's probably clear enough in the nom.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. :)
The code for a collapsed box would be:
{{Collapse top|''Title''}}
* ''Category 1'''
* ''Category 2''
* ...
{{Collapse bottom}}
-- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
rofl, easier than I recall it being. - jc37 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] AWB user

As you likely know more about awb than I do (as you use it : ) - would you please take a look at this? Apparently lots of mistakes, and is not answering questions on their talk page. Thank you. - jc37 06:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that Waacstats generated a list of articles categorized under a particular category tree of politicians, and that the tree happened to contain one or more non-politician categories. It's one of the pitfalls of using AWB-generated lists – the list is only as clean and accurate as the category tree from which it is drawn and always must be manually checked. It appears that he's corrected several of those that were brought to his attention, but there are others (e.g. Hosea Hudson, Milo Radulovich). In fact, the common thread appears to be Category:McCarthyism and its subcategories. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Future of MOTD

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Re Admin Barnstar

Thanks, --Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] MSU Interview

Dear Black Falcon,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Euphrates

Hi Black Falcon, You might want to add the Battle of Salman Pak article to this AfD - it was created by the same editor and has the same shortcomings. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I think, but I hestitate due to the fact that there is some slight coverage ([1][2][3]) of the skirmish. My feeling is that the skirmish is not notable, but a separate examination is probably worthwhile. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Falcon&oldid=476164846"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export