User talk:Vegaswikian

	Archives
	1 2 3 4 5

Welcome!

Hello, Vegaswikian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

CfD nomination of Category:Antennas

Category:Antennas, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, VW -- I think you commented on the "wrong" CFD, as it were (we agree on that one). The one I was notifying you about was just below it on the page. Cgingold (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Negro League baseball" to "Negro league baseball"

This is NOT an appropriate change. Where is the discussion on it? Your bot program has already renamed a lot of them. You need to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball before imposing this change further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Without opposition"? How were we supposed to know about it? Did you pose the question on the WP:Baseball page? Or did you just figure you would slip it in and no one would notice? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Percenters

Hello--I see you're participating in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_17#Category:Five_Percenters. I don't care much about that discussion, but happened pretty randomly on the category. I noticed that it's been applied liberally to bio articles without any source or material in the articles themselves indicating it's true. I'm afraid this is a wp:blp problem, and I started clearing it out, but I got lazy and concerned I was overdoing it... Any thoughts? CRETOG8(t/c) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BLP is always a concern with some categories. It needs to be renamed if kept. If consensus is to delete, I will not be upset. Clearly any articles that are not sourced can be removed from a category. The fact that no one complained about what you were doing in removing some articles is, in a way, support for your actions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about the renaming. I have a sneaking suspicion that somebody went applying the category willy-nilly. I'll start removing it from articles and see what happens. It could well be that after I've done so there's few or no articles left, which should make deleting more clear-cut. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help!

On Talk:Bugsy_Siegel, you write, “Basically you put the bulk of the material in a single place and use the link to access it.” That sounds like a good idea; is there some Wikipedia policy I should link to when I do it? It wouldn't surprise me if the question (of de-duplicating, and which page should be the “home” page) turned out to be somewhat contentious.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few. I bookmark this page for searching. Using 'policy "duplicate material"' as the search term, you get this link. Which has several sources for reducing duplicate material as policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

companies portal

I only add the template to the major companies articles. Jamcib (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Category, I try to add the template only when I think it's usefull. For exemple I don't add the template for the category who are named after companies. I think other wikiproject do the same things, like the EnergyPortal template on the Category:Energy. Jamcib (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem but for me only a few wikiproject are using the template:portal. I think this template is very usefull, for exemple see the statistics difference since I put the template for the companies portal (on semptembre 17). Perhaps we should use this template more and then find a solution for the articles and categories who could use a lot of portal templates. N.B. Sorry for my english... Jamcib (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Pass and E-PASS Wikipages

Hello VegasWikian, I've changed the REDIRECT on both of these articles from SunPass to Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority because the fact is that E-Pass is owned and operated by the O-OCEA and NOT by the Florida Department of Transportation which owns and administers SunPass, I feel that any references to E-Pass should be directed to it's parent operator and not a third party and as a point of reference the only relationship that exists between the E-Pass and SunPass programs is a reciprocal agreement to accept each others transponders at their respective toll plazas otherwise they are two separate and distinct programs. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

I relisted because it's been open over 20 days, so apparently none of the regular closers deemed that there was yet consensus. (Though noting that two comments came in in the last 2 days.)

If you feel that there is now consensus, please feel free to speedily close. - jc37 21:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

Having some trouble with some editors from the australia wikiproject over the rename of the settlements categories. I'm done reverting. Can you take a look at it? Thanks --Kbdank71 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

I was just working on the Protected areas of Western Australia article yesterday and today I find that the category is changed. Could you possibly explain why please? Satu Suro 05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken from another editors user page:

(1) "Of" means "belongs to". "In" merely means "located within". Protected areas clearly should be an "of" as they pertain to the state or territory in which they are located and usually are created under some piece of state/territory legislation. If it was an "in" but not an "of", then it wouldn't legally speaking *be* a protected area.)

(2) If you follow the discussion all the way back, someone made exactly that point with respect to national parks. Since they are national, they can't be of a state; they are of Australia but only in a state. So Category:National parks of New South Wales was moved to Category:National parks in New South Wales etc. This precedent was then used to establish the ludicrous convention that countries are always "of" and states are always "in", and all Australian protected area categories were speedily moved in accordance with that.

Please considering the above points - and that below - in good faith, could you change back - thank you Satu Suro 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can't speedy rename when the exact same proposition has previously failed at CFD. Orderinchaos 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've based this speedy rename not on an established convention, but on a previous discussion in which it was agreed that a national part can't be of a state because it is, by definition, national. That discussion essentially endorses the proposition that protected areas that are defined by the laws of a state and under a state's jurisdiction are of that state. Unfortunately, you have somehow managed to misinterpret it so as to justify doing the exact opposite. Hesperian 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Hesperian notes, National Parks, despite the name, *are* of a state here. They are established under state legislation and maintain their legal existence and status through said legislation. Example: WA VIC Orderinchaos 06:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using CfD to make the change? No one in there right mind is going to go against a standing approved discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to. The 13 May one is sufficient evidence that the community didn't agree with the change. Orderinchaos 07:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vegaswikian - I concur with the request by SatuSuro - it has been made politely and is reinforced by a number of other points and comments. Please act according to that request and the community's previous input so as to display the good faith that is expected in such a circumstance.--VS ^talk 08:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
1 2 3 4 5