User talk:RevelationDirect

Places of worship CFD

Hi RevelationDirect

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship, you appear to have !voted twice. You may want to fix this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: When I first looked, I thought I did too actually but User:Ingratis just linked to my user ID just before their own signature. (@Ingratis: I took the liberty of editing your comment slightly by putting my name in paratheses to make it clearer that the !vote was yours.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Duh. Sorry, RevelationDirect. I misread it.

Thanks for being so nice about my error, and for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I totally have accidentally voted twice before when the noms are relisted! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Halls of fame

The Hall of Fame Hall of Fame

Congrats on the CFDs for halls of fame inductees. Looking last night at Category:Hall of fame inductees and its subcats, it seemed to me that over 90% of them should go. Pity we can't just do one big cleanout.

If you keep up this good work, you'll have to be inducted into the Hall of Fame Hall of Fame . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! The sheer number of non-notatble award categories can be overwhelming and I'm hoping that cleaning up the Halls of Fame is a shorter term initiatve. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! The encouragement is much-deserved.

I hope that if you are successful in a decent proportion of these nominations, the weight of precedent will allow a tightening of the guidance at WP:OCAWARD to explicitly say that Hall of Fame categs are almost never acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

BHG - I also came over to say thanks to RD for their impressive work - getting so much done, quietly and efficiently in the background. Categories are a Rubics Cube for me. Keep up the excellent work, RD!!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect I spend a lot more time reading through these categories to see whether or not they are defining than was ever spent creating them. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm actually rather concerned about the mass deletion of these HOF categories. What is your dividing line for OCAWARD between, say Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners or Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees and Category:Minor foo HOF inductees? I'm seeing categories with hundreds of articles being put up. These are sometimes important for navigation, and a list article does not really assist readers in finding other individuals similarly situated... Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• (TPS) Why do you think "These are sometimes important for navigation" and "a list article does not really assist readers in finding other individuals similarly situated..."? Remember, most readers won't even see the category links. DexDor ^(talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see the categories at the bottom of every article, Dex, what are you talking about? There are hidden categories, but those are more in-house things. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Most readers use Mobile (not Desktop) view and that doesn't show categories. DexDor ^(talk) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Then they need to fix the app. Not our problem. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that not displaying them for most users is a bad thing, but it is our problem. All categories have been demoted to de fact administrative status for most readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• There's no mass deletion of Hall of Fame categories going on. They are being nominated either individually or small groups and evaluated on their merits to reach a consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Montanabw: Thank you for your feedback. Clearly my nominations are concerning from your perspective (here because I'm nonimating too many Hall of Fame categories that are too large or, conversely, in the Equestrian halls of fame in Texas conversation, because of inconsistently targeting small-scale HOF categories.) In that nomination you had a side conversation with DexDor where you mentioned that categories "can be overdone" and I'm hoping there's room there for us to come closer to agreement. Would you mind elaborating on how we would know when they've been overdone? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross

Thanks for nominating that. If I'd seen it sooner, I'd also have voted to delete it. People kept putting Siegfried Sassoon in there and there's no real evidence that he was ever considered for a VC. Deb (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

there was once hope

that there were adequate geols who could have expanded those two cats - they never happened or simply drifted away into the smelter smoke in the sky JarrahTree 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Understood, I have a few unfinished projects sitting around Wikipedia too, haha. I would suggest the right path forward would be to start a list article like List of minerals named after places in Australia like we have for List of minerals named after people. (I would model the format of List of tallest buildings in Sydney which has a sortable list you could duplicate but with different columns.) Without pre-supposing the outcome of my CFD nomination, there really isn't any existing category tree to place these into because of WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

ta for your generous responses - the shortfall of eds is a constant issue with me - but dont let me start... JarrahTree 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello/RTI International

Hi RevelationDirect. I work for RTI International, a non-profit research organization. I proposed some edits to the page in hopes that an independent editor would review and provide any feedback. Most of this is to trim promotion and weak sources, improve copyediting, or make un-controversial updates. However, there are a couple highlighted parts where someone added uncited criticisms, which is the main thing I was hoping an independent editor would take a look at. 

I noticed you showed an interest in a similar research organization and non-profits and thought you might have an interest in reviewing the proposed edits, or at least the highlighted ones that would look bad if I did them myself. Thoughts? Mzap RTI (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts

Further information: Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts

Hi. One or more of your pages have DEFAULTSORT conflicts: (search)

• User:RevelationDirect/Sandbox

Please either

• <nowiki> DEFAULTSORTs (if your page is a draft consisting of multiple subjects); or
• remove redundant DEFAULTSORTs (if your page is a draft with multiple DEFAULTSORTs); or
• remove all DEFAULTSORTs (otherwise)

in the affected pages. Thank you. – Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Regal Entertainment Group has been nominated for discussion

Category:Regal Entertainment Group, 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. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your seeming tireless efforts in bringing to CFD so many of the torrent of WP:NONDEFINING award categories which clog up biographical articles. This is a huge task which you research very thoroughly, and you present your findings very openly. This is a significant contribution to making biographical categories usable, by removing category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Want to give this a plus one as well, especially since you take the time to listify them rather than just putting them up for deletion hit-and-run style. bibliomaniac15 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Admin?

I don't know if it's ever been on your radar, but have you ever thought about going through an RFA? Your work on categories has been quite good, and we sorely need admins who are versed in the area. It would be a challenge (given that people's standards for adminship are quite high), but I was thinking about the need we have at CFD, and I think you have the temperament and clue to be an admin. bibliomaniac15 21:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Japanese Hall of Fame inductees

I'm a little confused as to why something like this would be deleted but something like Category:Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame inductees is not. Is it because the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame article isn't robust enough? I'm genuinely curious what I need to do to make this category worthwhile enough to be restored along with other "XXX Baseball Hall of Fame inductee" categories. Also, was any wikiproject alerted of this category deletion discussion? I would have definitely participated had seen it pop up in the Baseball Wikiproject talk page. --Torsodog^Talk 00:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Torsodog: Thanks for reaching out! A large majority of hall of fame categories have been deleted and I'm planning on nominating more. To use your Canada example, while the baseball one has not been nominated, deletions have included Category:Canada's Sports Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Canadian Curling Hall of Fame inductee, Category:Canadian Business Hall of Fame, Category:Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Canadian Mining Hall of Fame, Category:Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame, and Category:Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame inductees.

The way WP:CFD works is that you tag the category which alerts anyone with it on their watchlist. Most WikiProjects also have set up to add an automatic alert, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article alerts where there is another baseball category up for discussion now (input welcome!). After a week the discussion can be closed and, if you think there was a procedural error with that close, you can appeal to WP:DRV.

The issue is not with Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame list article at all. Categories are based on WP:NOTABILITY (is it verifiable by reliable secondary sources?) whereas categories are held to a standard of WP:DEFINING (does this category aid navigation because this feature defines the articles?) The difference between these two standards causes a lot of confusion leading to list articles being improperly converted into categories, per Wikipedia:Categories versus lists.

You also may want to consider creating a template, like Template:Australian Rugby League Hall of Fame, to which I would have no objection. Sorry for the long answer, but I hope it helped because I appreciate your concern. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries about the long answer, it's appreciated! Categories have always been weirdly confusing for me considering how active I've been on Wikipedia. I can't say I fully understand, but I'll look more into it. The Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame is fairly notable as well the induction of players into it. I know many of the Japanese baseball player articles don't reflect that, however, as improving all of the important player articles is unfortunately a huge undertaking. Maybe once many of the Japanese Hall of Fame player articles have been bulked up with references to their HOF induction the category again would be relevant? --Torsodog^Talk 02:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Improving the quality of articles would certainly be a worthwhile endeavor, although I'm not confident it would help bring back this category. Another area you might want to think about for it's own sake is improving the article. List of tallest buildings in Melbourne is clearly a very different topic but it is pretty awesome and pushes the bounds of how I think of a list article. Good luck! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Federation of School Administrators (logo).PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Federation of School Administrators (logo).PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Added back to file infobox at American Federation of School Administrators. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with a manual merge/disperse

Hey there, you mentioned that you would be willing to help with dispersing the contents of Category:Support ships into the proper subcategories of Category:Auxiliary ships in this discussion. I've recently closed it and would like to request your help on the matter. This request is also listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Manual_merges. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 02:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: Manually dispersed and I updated Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Ready for deletion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! bibliomaniac15 04:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Goodyear family has been nominated for renaming

Category:Goodyear family has been nominated for 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Amtrak President

Amtrak president listing left out Paul Restrip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:8A01:B2B0:BD91:817:5B77:68D (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@2601:84:8A01:B2B0:BD91:817:5B77:68D: To add an article to a category, the article has to exist and then you add the category to the bottom of that article. (In contrast, with list articles there can be redlinks for articles that don't exist yet.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have remained a redlink...

Shouldn't this have remained a redlink... Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Agreed, especially since the company is now referenced elsewhere in the article. Reversed my edit. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:The Bachelor has been nominated for renaming

Category:The Bachelor has been nominated for 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. ApprenticeFan work 02:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MB 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey I noticed you trying to delete my catergory

I noticed you are trying to delete my category. Reported haunted locations in japan. Can you explain why. CycoMa (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Sure, the articles tend to be historic locations that either have a troubled history (for the Japan subcategory, I'm thinking the Suicide Forest) or, and this might be an American thing, historic sites that intentionally market themselves for Halloween themed events before they switch to Christmas themed. While the "reports" are verifiable, the underlying claims of hauntedness are not and don't seem defining or encyclopedic to me.

What do you think? (Regardless of whether I change your mind, I encourage you to weigh in on the CFD discussion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of those articles mention how a good amount of people believe those places are haunted or at one point claimed to be haunted in folklore.

In folklore Himeji Castle was haunted by a spirit of Banchō Sarayashiki.

Many Japanese claim to hear or see supernatural things going on those locations as well.

The articles aren’t claiming that ghosts are real nor is it saying that all these sightings are true. It’s merely saying that people believe the locations to be haunted. CycoMa (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that people have opinions/beliefs about all sorts of things: which restaurants have the best food, which areas area beautiful, or where alien abducted them. Categorizing articles by these opinions is subjective even if we frame it as "Reportedly delicious", "Reportedly beautiful" or "Reportedly abducted". Thanks for sharing your thoughts! - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards categories

I see you've led the charge in deleting tons of crufty awards categories. I also see that you're keen on invoking precedent, but may I suggest an easier way? Perhaps you could create a subpage to your userpage and link to it from the discussions, listing on that page all the previous discussions that have taken place to build precedent that awards categories need to be more defining to stay around. I just want to save you the trouble of typing tons of wikilinks using the word "here". Cheers! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: That's a good idea, I created a list right here. Thanks for the suggestion! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Organized labour project

Thank you for earlier joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's userspace without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the 18 May 1811 Medal has been nominated for listification

See Category:Government ministries of Uruguay (Q21328510). List already exists. Just need to be created in this wiki. --Onwa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Followed up under original CFD notice at User talk:Onwa#Category:Recipients of the 18 May 1811 Medal has been nominated for listification. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated explorers

Based upon your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered explorers, I've carefully moved over only those that appear to have been assassinated. Please prune any that you don't think belong.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

they seek him here, they seek him where?

pdfpdf is as elusive as... whereveryour imagination might take you. Somewhere between buckleys and elsewhere - hahah, I get very strange emails at odd times that dont make sense, I suspect he is enjoying retirement... JarrahTree 02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense! The emails make perfect sense!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

see what I mean... JarrahTree 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cat:AOSM

Thanks for the heads up. I can't fault the logic of your proposal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY in the CFD for CATEGORY:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent

Hi, I’d like to ask that you strike the words: “no matter how long the reply my !vote receives below... -” per WP:RUC because this appears to be an attempt to WP:BAIT me into posting a WP:WALLOFTEXT, which would be a violation of civility rules itself (I will note that none of my replies in that thread are even that long by discussion standards). As you can see in the thread I didn’t take the bait and posted a reply only three times the length of your one sentence comment. On a related note I have also asked two other commenters in that thread to remove their uncivil comments as well (link). Thanks for your cooperation.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Striken with my apologies. @Carlossuarez46: That's a fair request and I appreciate you taking me aside on my talk page rather than escalating there. My intent was to discourage rather than bait and to have a playful tone. This isn't a fake "sorry if I offended you" apology though; it was uncivil. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for following up so quickly. However I do have to apologize for a mistake I made myself, that is forgetting to sign my comment. In case you thought you were addressing user:Carlossuarez46, that’s not the case.—-Prisencolin (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Young Victorians of the Year Category

Your recently proposed the above sub-titular category for listification and deletion. This debate was closed before I had a chance to respond. Based on the seniority of the award and the argument you used, it is clear that no award category can survive OC:Award (a redrafting which I strongly disagreed with when it was modified nearly a decade ago). Your rationale means that even a category for nobel laureates falls foul of OCAWARD. And all award categories should be removed. OC:Award was developed in its current fashion because editors couldn't handle a lengthy list of categories for awards associated with biographical articles. It flies in the face of Wikipedia policies that permit templates, lists and categories to coexist and pre-existing WP:ODM policies and category scheme for orders, decorations and medals. The solution now, as it was 10 years ago, was for the technical folk to develop functionality for collapsible nested categories. I did suggest this back then but it has gone nowhere. You have progressively been rolling back 100s of hours of work that I spent in categorising ODM recipients. I appreciate that you have been listifying them instead. Whilst I have not intervened in the majority of these because I know that there will be no support from the usual reviewers of these categorisation debates. On this occasion though, the award is significantly more important than you give it credit for and some of the supporting arguments you raised appear illogical. I was about to post the following to the debate but I see it has already been closed off.

• clearly not a case of WP:OCAWARD, if one understands the pecking order of awards in Australia. The above nomination down-plays the significance of this award. The Victorian of the Year, Young Victorian of the Year and Senior Victorian of the Year awards are the pre-eminent annual awards for Victoria and have counter-parts in the other seven Australian states and territories. As far as awards go in Australia, they are a big deal. For example this is the most senior of Jesse Martin's four awards. All recipients are notable per WP:ANYBIO but for the majority no one has taken on the task of raising the articles yet. Arguing establishment of non-notability by a lack of Wikipedia articles is circular logic and is not an accepted criteria for considering WP:BIO. The reality is that at a minimum, they will have had associated stories published in the major Victorian newspapers and broadcast on the major TV stations. They are likely to receive further intermittent media coverage during the following year associated with speaking engagements as part of their 'tour of duty' as the Young Victorian of the Year. This is in addition to the likelihood that there will be further coverage (in at least local media) of their involvement in the activities that then led to their being recognised by the award. By the logic of the nomination, there should be no category for Nobel laureates either and we might as well abandon any award categories (which I am sure would suit some editors just fine). Merit awards by their very nature recognise people who have done noteworthy/meritorious things. The things they have done are always going to take up a larger volume of their Wikipedia articles when it is well balanced. The award itself is only ever going to get a passing mention in the Wikipedia article unless there is something significant about the circumstance of the award decision/conferral that are worthy of discussing in greater detail.

To be clear, I appreciate you are acting in good faith. Whilst I fundamentally disagree with the change to OC:Award, in this instance I think that the category is permissible under OC:Award. If it is not, then I will take that as confirmation that in practice no award category is regarded as permissible. Regards, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)