User talk:Hmains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 40 most active Wikipedians.


Exquisite-khelpcenter.png   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)



Categories are a tool for browsing: they function as a table of contents, leading users to the articles on a specific subject. Categories are a means of classifying articles Categories are an index of a subject Categories are a database search: Many categories are in essence the intersection of two or more larger categories. Categories are an index of other categories: There are many categories that function simply as an index of other categories.

Human trafficking

Maintenance note[edit]

I maintain this page by deleting items after a week or two. Hmains (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

hold for cat discussion until find example[edit]

There are some categories that are used only for categories, and never for articles. Some of these categories have been made into 'hidden' categories, and yet they are never in fact 'hidden' since the hidden feature only applies to articles and not categories. So the hidden category always displays on the category screen as 'hidden'--which is obviously a contradiction. I suggest, that category categories not be classified as hidden. When I have tried to remove the hidden classification in such cases, someone always just adds it back in. Without something said in this categorization guideline I have nothing much justify my removal.


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories


Wikipedia:Categorization Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Template:Americans WP:BLPCAT WP:LISTPEOPLE

  • 12 to 12 handled by find/replace table; not by module

public public

to fix

to avoid disambiguation pages use: |{{.*dis}}


  • to auto fill edit summary: "I haven't found a way to get autocomplete in IE at https with the current setup on Wikipedia's side. If http is acceptable to you then you can disable "Always use a secure connection when logged in" at Special:Preferences, log out, close IE, start IE again and log in at PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)"

it may also be necessary to force the WP address to be http: instead of https:


Reviewer Right Granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Hmains, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — ξxplicit 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


talk) talk talk

Linking Dates (centuries, decades, years, months, days, etc)[edit]


As always, the content of the linked-to article must provide substantive content to the linked-from article. The MOS decided most dates do not do this. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

what links here

filter by name:

  • calendar|day|week|month|year|decade|century|millennium|Showa|Shōwa|Meiji|Taisho|Taishō| in |Other events|(number)|(disambiguation)|Aught-|SO 8601|Timeline|acronyms|initialisms


  • {{Decadebox|{{Year dab|{{Year nav|{{Month header}}|{{Day}}|Category:Days of the year|{{Portal:Current events/Events by month}}|{{Months in the|Eastern Orthodox liturgical days|#REDIRECT|disambig|{{events by month links}}|month category|Months of the|The following events occurred in

Web page has expired[edit]

I follow the directions in the message shown on the screen.

"Click on the Refresh button on the toolbar to reload the page. After refreshing, you might need to navigate to the specific webpage again, or re-enter information."

On my computer I have to remember that "refresh" looks like a circle with an arrow at the top, and it's the fourth of five icons to the right of the URL. I don't even know what the others are. Then a box pops up and I have to click on "retry".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Since you are very active in the project, would you like to be an administrator? Do you need tools to move/delete pages for example? Are you active in WP space, involved in xFDs or something similar? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll second Magioladitis here. I think you'd do fantastic as an administrator. The choice is entirely yours, but just know that should you ever submit an RfA, you'll have my support. Kurtis (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both, but I think I would lose interest in WP doing admin things. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Understandable. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing, it's not my place to pressure you.
But in the off chance that you ever change your mind, know that I would feel confident in entrusting you with the tools. =) Kurtis (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi Hmains. I would like to thank you on behalf of the WP:WPSCH for the 100s of AWB cleanups you have been doing to school articles. Such articles are a regular problem area, so if you come across any redlinked alumni, please don't hesitate to remove them, and fix any obvious vandalisms. Also, if the article talk pages don't have the {{WikiProject Schools |class= |importance= |needs-infobox=}} you may wish to add it so we can assess them and keep a track on them. Thanks again, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Well thanks. Working on all the school categories has been a hard/exhausting task. The article fix up is just something that comes along with AWB general fixes, nothing I specifically targeted. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


  • The delinking of dates was exhaustively discussed by WP prior to the current wording of WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK and MOS:UNLINKDATES being agreed upon. Days, months, years, decades, centuries, etc were all included in the long discussion.

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, Hmains.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Whatever it is, this problem has not been fixed and there seems to be no activity by the people responsible for this mess to fix it. Hmains (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Hmains

I'm sorry that you're still having this frustrating problem. BJorsch named above the three different places where this problem may be caused: 1.your own computer, 2.the WMF's servers, or 3.a server in between you and the WMF's servers.

Each user is necessarily responsible for cacheing problems that appear in his own browser. Please follow all the steps at WP:BYPASS and let us know if that (hopefully!) solves the problem for you. If the problem is the WMF's caches, then it will likely be fixed relatively soon. If the problem is at a third-party server in between you and the WMF (e.g., on your corporate or university network or your local ISP), then I'm afraid that there is often nothing that either you or we are able to do about it except wait for the third-party server to update its cache. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:53

AWB: mass category creation[edit]

Can AWB create mass categories? E.g. i need to create categories from ”Football clubs established in 1900” to ”Football clubs established in 2020”. Each category must have 2 categories- parents, one stable ”Football clubs establishements by year” and second incrementable ”Establishements in {{year}}", where {{year}} has value from 1900 to 2020, for each new category incrementation +1. Its possible to do that with AWB? XXN (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@XXN:, yes, check out CSV Loader. You will need to file a BRFA and get approval before you start creating the categories. Ganeshk (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but i dont understand how to use your plugin)) I know about bot policy, i will work on, i have already submitted an request for approval. XXN (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Please follow the steps in this walk through. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or run into any issues. Ganeshk (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_25#Category:Rapists[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_25#Category:Rapists. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Please QUIT removing the Kansas template from cities in Kansas. Thanks. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • You provide no reason why this template should exist in Kansas city articles. And such a template is not known to be used in the city articles of any other US state. Why should Kansas be special/different? Hmains (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You haven't provided any reason to remove in any of your edit comments. Please show the RULE that says that it can't be in these articles, because I sure don't see the rule in Wikipedia:USCITY. Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas already plowed through every city article a few years ago to make them look uniform. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
My edit comments are very generalized and can be readily changed to 'not relevant to article'. I stated my reason above. Please give a reason for why articles on cities in Kansas should be unique. Please give a reason why a Template on the state of Kansas has anything to do with any particular city in Kansas. Information not pertinent to an article is always subject to removal at any time. Hmains (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The city is located in the state, which is no different than the city is located in the county. You didn't remove the county templates. If you say the city must be in the template, then why did you remove the Kansas template for cities that were listed within it? Adding the Kansas template has relevance, unlike if we added the Texas template which has zero relevance. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say 'included'; I said 'relevance'. A county is a locality with various populated places (cities and otherwise) in relatively close proximity. So those populated places and its template are relevant. A state template covers an entire state and not a locality. And it includes other subjects than populated places. Not relevant to a single populated place and a particular city is what I see. Hmains (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
For example, Derby, Kansas has Kansas right there in the article title, which is a valid point to keep it. I understand you point, but you are missing the benefit of the Kansas template, since it includes a collection of topics that we don't have to cherry pick out and drop into every "See also" section. We can easily add things in one template instead of having to touch 1000 to 2000 articles. Obviously Kansas isn't unique (per your 1st statement), because your automated tools are plowing through other states and removing similar templates, per Special:Contributions/Hmains. If it was ONLY Kansas, then you wouldn't be touching cities in other states with similar edits. You even kept doing it after I started this discussion. • SbmeirowTalk • 21:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you really want to advance the idea that since a city is in Kansas and thus has the name of the state, 'Kansas', in the name that the template about Kansas is therefore relevant to the article. This is at best 'irrelevant'. If you put these items in a see also section, they would also be irrelevant. The counties in the state of Kansas is not relevant to a city in Kansas; topics involving Kansas is not relevant to a city in Kansas; Kansas society articles are not relevant; regions of Kansas are not relevant; Lists of Kansas items are not relevant. At no point have you said these are relevant; you just want the template, regardless, and your arguments look increasingly 'made up' as you go on. Are far as other states, I find a random 5-10% of so of various states' cities articles have their state template. Not relevant as well and the pattern of use has no pattern and makes no sense either. Hmains (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
This should be discussed at Wikipedia:USCITY, including inviting people from various State Wiki Projects, instead of you appointing yourself as King over all city articles. Also, it's usually typical that once these types of discussions start that such editing actions should stop, but instead you just keep plowing along with your bot tools. • SbmeirowTalk • 22:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
As you will know regarding the rules for WP projects, projects are not allowed to control anything in WP. Discuss at will. Hmains (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sbmeirow asked me for input, and I suppose I might as well reply here. Years ago, when I was adding all of those county templates to everything, I started with Kansas, if I remember rightly; I think {{Kiowa County, Kansas}} was the first. At that time, I found a decent number of articles with state templates (and the same was true with places in other states), even when they were tiny communities without a chance of being listed on the state template. In such cases, I invariably removed the state template — unlike templates such as {{NRHP}}, which is basically meant to provide a standardised group of links for every relevant page, a template such as {{Kansas}} is really meant just for navigation among the articles included on the template. Any city linked by the template ought to have it, for example, but cities too small for the template really shouldn't have the template. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend. Missouri follows this rule in general. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, this at least gives a reason for why the state template might have something to do with some of the city articles. No reason was advanced above. Is this idea documented anywhere? Even if it is, how will the ordinary editor know about this? The ordinary editor will just see lots of city articles for a state, some with the template and some without. And will then think the articles need help: the articles without the template need it or the articles with the template don't need it. And so the articles will be whipped back and forth, depending on who happens to be editing them at the moment. A great wasted effort, creating confusion and ill-will. Is there nothing better? Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide[edit]

Thanks for refining the category structure and going through the Category:Armenian Genocide victims.Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • And thank you very much Hmains (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota[edit]

Hello, Hmains!

Thank you for your recent edits to the page I have been working on. I appreciate the additional categories you have found that apply to Elcor, Minnesota. However, I am a little perplexed at your edit changing the definition of Elcor, Minnesota from a ghost town to an extinct town. I actually did a Google search to determine what the difference was, and the first page that came up was In reading this page, there seems to be some contention as to the edits you are making with this designation as noted by Firsfron of Ronchester that may violate WP:OR policy. John from Idegon warned me in an earlier edit of Elcor, Minnesota that my first hand knowledge of this location violated the WP:OR policy, and any such content was subsequently removed by me so that the article stands only on WP:RS

If you mean an "extinct town" is one where the residential portion of the community no longer exists because it has been mined over, then I agree. However, Corsica pit still remains, as does the foundation for the dry (change) house, which is still clearly visible on satellite imagery...if you know where to look. Also, many of the references for the article (Ghost Towns on the Range; Ghost Towns and Locations of the Vermilion and East Mesabi Mining Districts) specifically refer to Elcor as a "ghost town". A solution for defining what constitutes a "ghost town" was proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ghost towns citing Gary Speck at this website: Also, Prof. Arnold Alanen of the University of Wisconsin has his own classification as to what constitutes a ghost town, which will be featured in an upcoming book to be published by the Iron Range Historical Society this year, and Elcor clearly fits his definition. Even searching for "extinct town" on Wikipedia redirects to the ghost town page.

I will be reinserting the definition of ghost town in to the Elcor article, but will retain and clarify your definition that it may be more properly referred to as an "extinct town". But you might want to reference cited reliable sources in other ghost town articles before making future edits arbitrarily on other pages.

DrGregMN (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. with DrGregMN here, extinct and ghost town do not the same thing makeCoal town guy (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that in WP extinct meant no trace of the populated place still exists while ghost town meant there were some evidence left of where the town used to be. I can only go by what I find in the article text. I do not look beyond that. And we cannot just choose to use this or what definition we find elsewhere. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
That is pretty much the point, however, the question to ask would be exactly, is there yes or no any sign of previous habitation?Coal town guy (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing I found in the article text which is the only place I look Hmains (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why not shake things up and actually ask the main editor of the piece which is the whole point of collaboration?? Just saying.....Coal town guy (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Former populated places"[edit]

I don't know how many places you are doing this, but you categorized several unincorporated communities in Montana as "former populated places" and this is inaccurate; most have a few people, admittedly, sometimes it's a bar and three double wide mobile homes, but they ARE inhabited! I've reverted some. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Chickamauga Wars article title[edit]

You might be interested in the discussion of a new title for Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794). Your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:Chickamauga Wars (1776–94)#Requested move. — ob C. alias ALAROB 20:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Colored Conventions people[edit]

Hi; FYI see the close at this CFD, which I believe is relevant to your creation of the above category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes. I should have left a note. Actually, Category:Colored Convention activists would have been a better name, based on other such categories that I later noticed. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I was confused at first but I figured it out. I left a note with the nominator as well. We'll see—he may choose to do a follow-up nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Leonid Chernovetskyi[edit]

Hello! I have a problem with editing a page Leonid Chernovetskyi. I add the text: "In 2003 he initiated a law on" The protection of public morality ". This law regulates a circulation of information products, which negatively affects public morality and bans turnover of items and products of pornographic nature". It remains on the page, but does not appear when you save it.

from Diranakir[edit]

Hmains, thanks for the red flag, very important. I restored the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talkcontribs) 23:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm ...[edit]

Most of your recent category refinements that have shown up on my watchlist have made sense but this one does not. Most of the features now in Category:Landforms of Ulster County, New York are bodies of water. I have made the existing Category:Lakes of Ulster County, New York a subcategory of that. Should I move the lakes and reservoirs back, or is there some grand plan with the categories I'm missing? Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. Several thoughts. Although I created the bodies of water category tree, I noticed there would be very few entries and lots of near empty categories for specific types of water bodies at county level. Same of specific types of landforms at the county level. In several years time, only a few specific types of landforms or types of bodies of water categories have been created or populated at the county level. Those that exist have not been completely populated, are not consistent for all counties with a state, etc. In other words, lots of work to be done, not much effort being expended to do it and not much apparent interest. Personally, I am just trying to get county level landform categories to be created and populated, after a 2 year break, changing from 'Geography of' to 'Landforms of'. And I have 30-some states yet to do. Hmains (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Reservoirs and dams[edit]

Hi, I see that in March you added Category:Dams in Queensland as well as Category:Reservoirs and dams in Queensland to Cania Dam, and perhaps to others in Category:Reservoirs and dams in Queensland. Was this in preparation to sweep all the remaining contents of that category into Category:Reservoirs and dams in Queensland? I looked at several, and the infobox for them all said type=Reservoir; is this sufficient to categorise the page in Reservoirs? – Fayenatic London 16:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • There is a multiple country category tree for Dams; there is a different one for Reservoirs; and both often go down to the 'state' level. There is no other country or state than Queensland having a combined 'Reservoirs and dams' category. I believe you will find that I just added the Dams category to set up a standard tree here also. All the other Australian 'Reservoirs and dams' categories were deleted in April, but this was not in, or was missed, in that exercise. So I would say it is a delete candidate. Hmains (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks; sorry I was not clear – there has already been a CfD decision to split the combined 'Reservoirs and dams' category. I'm trying to finish the task which is listed at WP:CFDWM. Q1: Do you think you already fully populated the Dams category? (if so, someone only needs to see whether the remaining members of the combined category are reservoirs or not.)
      • I have forgotten where I left off; everything should be rechecked. Sorry. Hmains (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Q2: do you think the infobox parameter is enough to go on to decide whether to categorise as Reservoirs? – Fayenatic London 21:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I would think that the text of the article is a better (hopefully referenced) source of information. Infobox can be right or wrong in matching the text. All depends on the quality of the editing. Hmains (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. For info, I found that all the members were in Dams, so I swept all but one into Reservoirs. – Fayenatic London 08:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Bodies of water categories[edit]

Hi! Would you mind not emptying out the county-level bodies of water category, please? I think it's sufficiently broad enough that they aren't "nearly empty" and I'm working on populating them with more articles. I think it's better for bodies of water not to be lumped in with landforms when there are so many bodies of water. For instance, Category:Bodies of water in Columbia County, Pennsylvania has nearly 30 pages. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • In the category structure and in the Landforms article, bodies of water are just another landform. While the types of water bodies can be categorized as such at the state and national level, there is no reason to do so at the county level just because it can be done. To have an article categorized by its being a river or a lake in state xxx and being a landform in county yyy is completely sufficient for navigation. I am still working on getting all the landforms into county level categories instead of being in geography county level categories and I am doing this for all 50 states. You are adding an unnecessary and unneeded set of categories. Your example of a county with many water bodies is very rare across the entire set of US countries. Even if not very rare, the county water body categories are not necessary or helpful to WP. Hmains (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
  • It's certainly not that rare in Pennsylvania counties. And it's easier to navigate categories with ten articles instead of categories with hundreds of articles (state-level bodies of water categories) or tens of thousands (national-level bodies of water categories). Perhaps as a compromise though, I'll stop creating more county-level bodies of water categories without WikiProject approval if you'll stop removing article from the existing ones without WikiProject approval. Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can stop but what WikiProject? As you must know, such projects are not authoritative over anything in WP and are often dominated/controlled by a small number (even 1) editor who have already established exactly what they want/not want in WP and will fight by any means to achieve that ownership. As to how to navigate: categories are not for doing finds against specific names of objects (search is for that) but for finding objects related to something else that you already know about. I believe if you look at national categories, for example, you will not find the thousands of articles you claim are there: the structure (most of which I established) is not set up that way. The county level landform categories are sufficient and will not overwhelm anyone looking around for related items within a county. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got no objection to that. I only wanted the county-level bodies of water categories to remain intact. --Jakob (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you set this up as you go? I am still working my way though county landforms categories and still have a dozen or so states to do. When you create a county bodies of water category, can you put it into the parent categories (and sort order) as shown in Delaware? Can you create new Category:Bodies of water of xxstate by county categories as needed and also can you put it into the parent categories (and sort order) as shown in Delaware? Hmains (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also for each state, are you prepared to populate the bodies of water county categories with all the articles found in the types of water bodies in Category:Bodies of water of xxstate? Hmains (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can do that. --Jakob (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose the existing categories can be moved since there are only 72. Would that be a better job to do manually or with a tool like AWB? --Jakob (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I use AWB to move lots of things and I can certainly move these if you want me to. The manual effort (I have no idea how to make AWB do such things) is to create all the necessary categories and put one article in each one. This is what takes so long in all my endless category work. Hmains (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jakob: I created the parent category Category:Bodies of water of Pennsylvania by county and moved all the county bodies of water subcats in it. I also changed the parent of each of the county bodies of water from 'Geography of xx county' to 'Landforms of xx county'--all as discussed above. If you can create all the 'Bodies of water of xxx County, Pennsylvania', then I can AWB move ALL the Pennsylvania bodies of water to those new categories, emptying the 'Bodies of water in xxx County, Pennsylvania' as discussed above. Hmains (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that was helpful. BTW are you aware that the page move function has been extended to categories? I'll get to that as soon as I finish repopulating the categories. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I knew about the category page move but don't know who has it. I now see I have it, but I have not yet used it. Hmains (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Jakob My mistake which I did not notice. Thanks for noticing. If you are editing each of these categories can you easily fix this? If not, I will fix them. Hmains (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think there are bots to recategorize the articles. --Jakob (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are bots that only admins can use; other bots can only be used by the bot owner; there are no 'public' bots. Hmains (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I just fixed all example Bodies errors which I made. Hmains (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Romuald the Reindeer[edit]

Since you once edited the Romuald the Reindeer article here, would you know what the lyrics to the theme song are?Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

  • Sorry; not a clue Hmains (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lake Manawa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Geography of Pottawattamie County, Iowa]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Chesapeake Bay[edit]


I see that you recently changed "Category:Tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay" to Category:Tributaries of Chesapeake Bay, reasoning that bay doesn't carry an article. Actually, the Chesapeake is an exception to this rule. I can't find any sources specifically discussing this rule (not the least because keywords like "the" or "article" don't help winnow down search results); but as an example, see standard usage in the Bay's own Wikipedia article, or articles in The Washington Post and Baltimore Sun.

I was going to change it back, but before doing all that work I wondered if you had any input.

Cheers! acomas (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I do see your point now, but before you change anything, consider why other categories on the bay, such as Chesapeake Bay, do not include 'The'. Hmains (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I will change it back Hmains (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)