User talk:Carlwev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What happened to Wikipedia:Vital articles[edit]

The short answer is that User:GabeMc showed up and demanded large changes to the list. He was the one who pushed for the addition of Golda Meir, among other. If you have problems with his adds, I suggest taking it up with him pbp 17:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent comments[edit]

Little FYI: the active thread appears to be "Suggested changes" rather than "GabeMc's recent deletions". Just thought you should know pbp 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent proposals[edit]

Great work. I'm still mulling over some options, so I've changed a few of your counts. Hope you don't mind. Nice work, you've made some really fantastic suggestions, particularly for additions. Keep in mind that we are currently at least 9 articles short of 1,000, so we can add at least that much more than we remove. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles: separate discussion and !voting[edit]

Carl, I think we've reached the point where further changes to the Vital Articles list require item-by-item discussion and !voting. We also need to get more people involved for a wider range of perspectives, including those editors who are listed as current Vital Article project members. The original list included a lot of careful consideration and balance, and this latest round of proposed changes would have a major impact on the structure and content of the list. I would be grateful if you would break out each item as Purplebackpack and Gabe have done for their most recent changes. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I know you are eager to make progress with revisions to the VA lists, but I note that you have made a number of changes to the list of 10,000 based on fairly minimal prior discussion. Frankly, I support several of these changes, including the deletions of the comedians, but these changes should be supported by more than !polls in which three or four editors participate. Please slow down and wait for greater participation. These lists should represent more than the opinions of 3 or 4 users, and nothing needs to be changed that quickly. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Carl, I asked Gabe to do an updated count of topics for the list of 1,000. His total came to 999. Do you have time to double-check his count? We need to get an accurate number before we add anything else. Everyone has been operating under the assumption we still had 10 to 15 slots as wiggle room. That may not be the case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I would also support deleting the following U.S. presidents: Monroe, Grant, Cleveland, Carter, both Bushes, and Clinton. Keep Reagan and Obama among recent ones. Also, please note I will be on Wikibreak from April 6 to April 14 and will be lucky to check in once a day during those eight days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013[edit]


The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Index | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:


To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Vital Articles project: Moratorium[edit]

Carl, gentle reminder: the moratorium on adds and deletes is now in effect until 12:01 a.m., May 16, 2013. We can discuss and vote on changes to the VA lists, but should not actually implement any changes until after the 16th because of the article improvement competition. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project: current count[edit]

Carl, would you mind updating the expanded list total? I'm not sure how it happened, but the previous running total apparently got rolled off the page by the auto-archive function.

Also, we need to emphasize deletions until we get the numbers under control. We seem to have a number of good candidates for deletion that have been mentioned in the various threads, but never proposed in the voting/discussion modules. Let's give that some thought, review what has been mentioned, and contemplate some more deletion proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Bagatelle?[edit]

Carl, did I miss something in my year at a British university? I've never heard of bagatelle; is it a big pub or parlor game in the UK? If not, I think we need to add it to the list of proposed removals from the Sports sublist? Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Bridges[edit]

Carl, what are your thoughts on the specific examples of well-known bridges? I see you proposed two for deletion . . . What, if any basis, should there be for specific examples? Longest? Longest over water? Longest span? Historical significance? The current list is heavy on American examples. With the big Chinese civil engineering projects of the last 20 years, most of the "longest" are now Asian. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Borough of Greenwich 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding National anthem and Christmas carol[edit]

Do me a favor: find two modern pieces that don’t belong or are redundant, and propose that they be swapped for national anthem and Christmas carol. I’ve proposed removing a number of classical works in favor of Music of ______, the places I have so far are USA, Germany, France, Russia, Latin America and China pbp 22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: current article count[edit]

Carl, with all of the changes since the moratorium ended on May 15, do we have a current VA/E topic count? Also, how would you feel about keeping a log of all VA/E list changes since January 1, 2013, with all moves, adds, drops and swaps by date? We could set up a subpage of the main VA/E talk page and then link to it from the main page . . . .

BTW, if I haven't said it recently, thank you for all your hard work in scouring the VA/E sublists for opportunities for improvements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Dancers[edit]

Hey, Carl. I invited several members of the dance project to comment on the existing VA/E list of 26 dancers, and three of them have left some interesting comments on my talk page. I thought you might want to look them over and ask questions, make comments, etc., as you think appropriate. As we get further and further off the beaten path of knowledgeable generalists, we are going to need to invite more editors with specialized knowledge to participate . . . . When it comes to determining who the 20 most significant dancers of all-time are, personally, I'm just going on name recognition; I lack the knowledge to offer an informed opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bio/health sci discussions @ WT:VA/E[edit]

Two of the discussions you started in the biology and health sciences section of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded have been open for over 15 days and have 5 supports against no opposes? Since I'm not entirely sure where those additions are supposed to go, would you mind closing them? pbp 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: minimum time for discussion[edit]

Carl, as we pick up new participants, we are getting to 5−1, 5−2, 6−0, 6−1 and 6−2 !vote totals faster than we ever have. May I suggest that we should still adhere to the 15-day discussion minimum? I think it is important from a procedure/process standpoint that we not rush any deletions or additions. Someone thought all existing VA/E list topics were once "vital" enough to include, and any objections deserve reasonable time to be heard. And, just in case I don't say it often enough, please accept my thanks for your diligence and all of the hard work you have to done to help get VA/E out of the weeds. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

VA/E Number[edit]

How about an update on the number of vital articles, to know how is the process now? I would like to know how many are for now. Another thing: "Remove Kenny Dalglish" is 6-0, "Remove Ryan Giggs" is 5-0 and "Remove Bill Shoemaker (jockey)" is 5-0, you can finish by now. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

Hi, I noticed you added Communication to the Vital Articles list, but didn't leave an edit summary. I'd appreciate if you would try to use summaries for such pages, since it makes it easy to keep track of changes by going to the history page. Thanks. Ypnypn (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ocean floor VA/E proposals[edit]

FYI, most of them have passed now. Since I'm not sure where the things you want added go, I would ask you to close them pbp 16:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

VA/E Duino Elegies[edit]

Carl--Could you consider being the fifth support vote to add Duino Elegies, an FA, (at the expense of removing either Kipling's If or Rimbaud's Season in Hell)?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsigned vote[edit]

There is an unsigned vote on the VA/E-page for Accountancy - it sounds like you wrote it, but I could be wrong? --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

yeah that was me, guilty. Thank you, for telling me. Carlwev (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Vital folk music[edit]

The only reason I started taking an interest in the vital list was because of the fact that the list of folk and country musicians doesn't include a single non-American artist. All of the maneuvers I have tried to add any artist or folk tradition from outside of the US has been opposed by you, mostly without offering rationales - or simply by saying that "there are no other folk traditions represented" (which is not true because American folk is very well represented). Now I want to ask you: Do you really think that it is possible that there isn't a single artist or folk music tradition from outside of the US that is vital? Who would you add if you had to add one or two folk artists from outside of the US? And finally don't you consider it to be the case that non-Western or non-US musical traditions should expect some kind of representation? I simply don't understand why people are opposed to globalizing the music section. Especially not the folk section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles[edit]

I don't want to clog up the vital articles project talk page with arguments, I will save it on my own talk page instead, I am ashamed I am even taking part in arguments we need to stop it all of it including me, and everyone else.

User:GabeMc Sometimes we all agree sometimes we don't, I shouldn't even acknowledge you comment. This page is becoming hostile and silly, I am scared to express a vote that disagrees with anyone because of a backlash of comments and other odd behavior. I fear others may feel the same. Personal attacks are not civil, in the Wiki community or anywhere, and on top of that I don't even know what your comment means, as I have never been Christian, and the only Christian topic I recall voting on in the last 6 months was the addition of Pope Francis, which I opposed the addition of and you actually supported the addition, see here so what are you talking about??? please don't resort to personal attacks if they make sense or not, they are completely uncivil, and although we disagree I would like it if we could disagree with grace and respect. You also opposed the removal of College of Pontiffs see here because you believed it to be a catholic term (which it isn't), not only where you attempting to save an article you thought was a christian one, this also suggests very strongly you are casting votes without even looking at the articles you are voting for, which if true, why should we even listen to your votes?
I simply think that people and musicians is too bloated but you may not, where as you think food or weapons or space tech is bloated where I may not. I will point out there are threads like "remove Soviet singer Alla Pugacheva", where gabe and Maunus are trying to remove the article and I am trying to keep, because I think that specific non-English speaking artist is vital but you two don't, you two think the Dubliners may be vital where as I don't. We should just give honest opinions and votes without fear of retribution, take on board others comments and points, see if they have more of a point than we realized. Also I am trying hard to vote without my own tastes coming into question I have no taste for Alla Pugacheva; one of my favourite bands is Radiohead, someone added Radiohead to the list, then I removed them because I don't consider them to be in the 180 most vital musicians, same as I think the Dubliners are not.
I would also like to add I tried to swap in some non christian religious topics like reincarnation, which you opposed 2 threads I started because of apples and oranges, yet you supported another's thread for it but not 2 of mine. You also supported the lone removal Turan Depression, which was mine thank you, you supported adding Reincarnation in Rsm's swap thread, but you opposed my thread about removing Turan dep, for reincarnation, although you agreed on them separately in other threads it's your votes I'm questioning, you are contradicting yourself not to mention changing your mind more than everyone else put together I am starting to think people are voting purely on the grounds of who started the thread, or on the grounds that users own personal preference is to refuse all cross swaps. Carlwev (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My advice to you would be to try to not take the !votes personally. I'm not !voting against you, Carl, I'm voting against some of your proposals (I've also supported several). And yes, I've changed several of my !votes and as far as I know that is my prerogative. If you look at the ones I changed, it was almost always in favour of the consensus and in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation, not to block consensus, but to reinforce it. I will continue to reserve the right to change my !votes as I see fit and frankly I resent the implication that you find it grounds for criticism. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

comment 2[edit]

So many things are bothering me I don't even know where to start. We will never all agree, that is the point of discussion and voting. People can give their view but there comes a point when users including me, start to rant like I am right now, start arguing and giving snidey attacking comments, even I've done it and I'm ashamed, others have done it too. We all have different views, Maunus and gabe I just happen to believe people and music is too bloated. I just happen to think that the Dubliners, and Fairpoint Convention are not within the top 180 vital musicians that walked the planet, or within the 2000 most important people that ever lived, or within the 10'000 most vital topics of any kind that should be in an encyclopedia, that's why I voted that, I know there is a disparity with regional fairness, Fairpoint Conv is English - Like me? I can't see how I'm being unfair voting against my own region as it were. One particular thread was for Alla Pugacheva, someone who I have no interest in whom I think is a good non American Musician. Gabe and Maunus voted to remove her I voted to keep her. So we are all of us are against certain non American Musicians but in support of others, there's nothing exclusively nasty in any of us, against certain regions. As Maunus also proposed another Russian performer to add which I can see and supported.

Maunus it is clear you want Irish and British Folk music in. I am trying to review the whole list not just musicians. Not all but many of the musicians you want in are Irish Folk, you yourself may be contributing, or trying, to the regional disparity, maybe get one in like the Dubliners at a stretch but when you start pushing for loads of Irish Folk it would then be too big compared to other areas of similar importance, if we had it your way there would be several Irish Folk Orchestras/musicians, you would be happy, but the area would be too big compared to others. You are trying to add several articles to a topic region that isn't of mega world importance, but one which you think is important, and because there are lots of Americans you think it is justified there are loads of other regions not represented well or at all, Thailand indonesia Ethiopia, and more nations with big population have no musicians, even regions with 100s of millions like Africa as a whole, China and India don't have many musicians either. We don't have the top Gamelan Musician or top Aboriginal rock performer. We have 180 approx musicians including Classical and Modern, There are obvious important musicians Elvis Beatles Mozart Beethoven, then less obvious ones, which can be discussed, and maybe removed removed. I can see that many of the musicians you proposed are important to Irish Folk, but can you, hand on heart tell me you believe they are within the 180 most vital musicians of any genre, region or time period ever to walk the earth. I can understand your frustration, but the musicians are at 180, not many people want it bigger, I try to think of who is within the most important musicians who have ever lived on the planet, and in the grand scheme of things My own opinion I don't think Dubliners or Fairpoint Conv make it, sorry. I think most musicians are not top notch encyclopedia articles, I'm not picking on you or have a vendetta against you. My vote is only one of many, it takes mine and others votes to change anything.

My own opinion I think we should have more "peoples" in the list, articles like Inuit people and Maasai people are articles that could and should be in an encyclopedia, so we agree on some topics but not others, in the future I will push for these ethnic groups and give my rational and votes, propose diplomatic good looking swaps, see if others want them in too, but I will also give honest votes for other things if I honestly believe they should not be in also. My votes are true to my opinion, and I take into account what others say think about it and it may alter my view. I think some of Maunus's add proposals are great like the people but some of, not all, of the musicians are not so good. I have had what I thought were "great" ideas like adding Abrahamic Religions and Professional Wrestling which everyone voted against, and I moved on. I've had some threads where many supported but one or 2 opposed, like Remove Martini. I would never begrudge one nor many people for disagreeing with me, if they reviewed the articles and genuinely did believe what the were voting, and maybe said why, thats why we're here. Some of my views like keeping Tom Cruise, or adding Wrestling about 8 people are against me, it's times like that I start to think maybe my view is the minority, may be I am wrong on this one. This is part of the reason for the voting, in the past I would have adding Pro Wrestling with no discussion and most other people would have hated it, in the past you could have added the Fairpoint convention but most other people would have hated it. There are many border line topics, the voting decides at the moment. It looks like Dubliners may have a tiny shot, but not fairpoint convention.

I will rant more about what's bothering me later I am busy being full time dad and manager, as well as being a slow typer. Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Carl, I'm really sorry if I offended you. In terms of "Christian" topics, I was talking about how you wanted to add Christmas to the 1,000 list even though there were no other holidays religious or otherwise on the list. Maybe I've overgeneralized the point, but you do seem to favour Anglo Christian topics over all others IMO (there are other examples that I cannot think of now). Another thing I would say is that you seem to oppose almost everything I propose (mostly because I proposed it, IMO), which is of course your prerogative. E.g., you seem to agree that vitamin is misplaced in foods, but you cannot bring yourself to support the move thread. Why, if not because I proposed it? Lastly, IMO you insist on clogging-up the talk pages with your endless rants so that a page that is already difficult to follow is getting next to impossible to follow: I'll bet 70% of all words on the VA/E talk page are yours. If you cannot express your ideas in a normal-sized, easy to understand paragraph then perhaps you should reformulate your thoughts before typing. Wikipedia is not your personal blog, but you seem to think that it is. Anyway, sorry again if I offended you, but according to my perception of things; I stand by my comments as fairly accurate overall. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Last comment to User:GabeMc[edit]

I want us to get along after this, we should both be better people than this, sorry for the long post, but it's on my own page and it will be my last, I promise.

We both need to draw a line here under what's gone before, you and me both have probably been inappropriate at times. That one comment did offend me but it doesn't matter, it's been and gone. Although I'm not Christian I'm willing to forgive and forget and leave it all in the past. By the way, Explaining myself, Christmas, if I remember correctly, I was proposing to remove, Mary mother of Jesus, and add Christmas, remove one christian topic and replace it with what I saw as a more important Christian/cultural topic. But i put adds and removals up all separately so it could have easily been missed, and I can understand why you thought it biased, having no other holidays, of all my ideas, that one is not one of my best.

I would really like it if we could all just get along from now. I read your passage, I agree 100% I have a character flaw, in that I cannot write short paragraphs, I will try to remedy that, I kind of noticed already, and I annoy myself with it, that's also why I am continuing and ending it here on my own talk page instead of over there. I wrote as I thought, it became too long, and I have to leave for work or cook dinner or what ever so run out of time to reread it and summarize it, saved it as it was, too long. I will shorten things from now on. This message is already getting long, but I hope it will be the last, so don't bring it up as a "point scorer" in discussions, I agree, I will fix. This will be my last long post, and it's on my own page anyway.

I want too be honest with you, but not to pick a fight just to get things out in the open, I want you to see my POV. I think or hope that we really just have our wires crossed, and that we, just by chance, disagree on what is vital, redundant and diverse. I do just by chance happen to disagree with you on so many of your proposals and votes. I don't want to look like I'm cut and pasting oppose on all your threads, so I try to explain why I oppose on each one then my comments are too big. You are simply trying to cut things I don't think should be trimmed. I really am at the point where I am scared to oppose removal threads of yours that I honestly, honestly think should stay, because I'm afraid of how it looks or afraid you will react. I used to enjoy being here, but now I find it a bit hostile, it needs to get better. I don't oppose all your threads, Virtual globe, Topological map, yes I think they can go, border? no I don't, I think we both have a habit of only remembering the opposes.

I also believed you were opposing things just because I wrote them I don't know if it's true or I'm imagining it? I looked down the talk page and you also support many of my threads too. I don't like to accuse but I will try to explain my thoughts, and make you realize why I think what I think. Whether true or not I sometimes feel you are saying "apples and oranges" only as a reason to oppose me. I know you say you don't like cross swaps but you have supported other peoples cross swaps but opposed some of mine, and also contradicted yourself in voting. You supported to remove Turan Depression. You supported swapping in Reincarnation for a duplicate Neopaganism, in someone else's thread. But my swapping of the 2 Reincarnation for Turan you opposed, although you actually agree with the add and removal in other separate threads though. You opposed swapping in Reincarnation and removing Spearthrower Owl "Apples to Oranges" but you supported both in other threads, Cross swaps... You supported someones "Remove Longchenpa, Add Nirvana" removing a Buddhist person and adding a Buddhist topic, was OK for you, but my removing a dance person for a dance topic (Flamenco), is "Apples to Oranges", my removing a sports person for a sport (Sailing) is "Apples to Oranges" as well. You have also supported some of my cross swaps too so I'm very confused, Monopoly, GDP, Hunger, you supported cross swaps there, but not Spearthrower Owl, Reincation, Turan depression cross swaps, but other threads with them. If you genuinely think Reincarnation doesn't belong OK. If you genuinely think Turan depression does belongs OK. But you don't because you voted differently in other threads. If you genuinely don't want cross swaps, why accept some but not others, why oppose some when you are supporting each article of the swap in other threads? I am really confused.

I believe at least occasionally you vote or comment without reviewing the article. You voted to keep College of Pontiffs, as it's important to Christians. It appears you didn't review the article. You want to remove border as you presume it's covered by country, but it's not at the moment, shows you never reviewed the article.

Anglocentric? We have both voted for and against eastern and western topics all round. You voted to keep Shania Twain, Gene Hackman, Leonardo DiCaprio and Pope Francis and Eminem (some altered later) Where I voted to remove. I voted to have Alla Pugacheva, Korea, Tibet, Reincarnation. I voted to remove numerous American Journalists and Scientists, and actors but to keep Tom Cruise. We have both voted for and against numerous east and west topics.

We just think the list should have different things on it, I think we should have numerous big and small weapons, and foods and furnitures, regardless of who proposes them or not, you don't, you want other things. I feel like if I express my genuine judgment on a topic with votes or comments you'll believe it's because it's your post. If you open around 10 food and furniture threads, my genuine view regardless of who opens the thread is to keep them, but then I'm opposing 20 of your posts at once and it looks bad. I don't think all items furniture is redundant to furniture itself. I think we need slightly more food not less. If I recall a while back you said "Why not just food? Do we really need 14 types of food listed under food?" It's clear to me you don't think food vital, were as I do, I mean everyone eats food, we are going to disagree on almost every one, but it doesn't mean we have to bicker, tripe can probably go. You may want more artists writers or musicians were I may not. I don't hate anyone for having a different opinion to me, but I want the opportunity to say "you know what I don't believe we should trim weapons food or furniture, I believe they are vital topics and not redudant, but I appreciate your efforts to improve the list" comment and vote wait for others to comment and vote, wait for consensus to emerge, and not have a backlash.

We are allowed to disagree, we should agree or disagree after making a genuine judgment of what is vital, to improve the list, not to curry favour or annoy others. My support or oppose of any threads is independent of who posts them. I want to be free to support or oppose what I believe to be vital or not without fear of an argument. I agree with some of your posts too as you agree with some of mine, we are both only remembering the bad

Anyway, I think you have some really good ideas, but I also think you have some bad ones too. I want to be able to express my view without fear, whether it is the same as your view or not. I want to enjoy taking part in the project, and for you too and others to enjoy taking part as well. I promise to try and make all other comments after this post shorter. I want us both to have the opportunity to express our view and votes truthfully, leave it without arguing, wait for others to give their view also, and wait for consensus. If you genuinely don't think an article should be in or out I can accept, but I really am confused as to why you support some cross swaps but not others, and some swaps that you oppose you support both halves of the swap elsewhere.

I'm glad you came back, the more here the better, this project needs dedicated users like me you pbp DL1 Maunus Jusdafax Melody and others. I try to not get to worked up when people vote against Wrestling or Abrahamic religions, but like it when they accept reincarnation we all appear to be passionate about this project, we all have good ideas and bad. We all have threads which get huge support, huge opposition and half and half. If we disagree on loads of topics so what, each of us should vote leave it wait for consensus, move on. There's no reason why we can't get on and have different views, I am grown man, a father and a manager, if I cannot interact well and get along with someone with different views then I am ashamed of myself, and so should others who cannot as well. One of my best friends is Christian I am Atheist we get on fine.

Oh and by the way we all voted off Harry Potter a while back, sorry you missed it you would have loved it. I do disagree with you sometimes so what, lets keep moving forward. I also do agree with you sometimes as well, look at the size of this passage your definitely are 100% right there. But What the Hell this is my talk page, and doesn't clog up the project. We don't need to agree on everything to get along, lets put this behind us for good and move on, and I'll promise to make this my last long rant. Carlwev (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. You are indeed an asset to the project and I don't want you to lose enjoyment of it for any reason, so I'll do my very best to move forward with you as collaborators, not rivals. Sound good? Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Household items[edit]

I'm curious what your thoughts are on this section of proposals. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Near 100% agreement with PbP[edit]

Carl, can you please point me to one single thread where you have disagreed with PbP? He has disagreed with several of your proposals, but I can't seem to find one single instance where you !voted in opposition to PbP's !vote. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Carl, looks like PbP has now weighed-in on the removal of military ranks, which means that you are now free to agree with him. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought we were past this, Me and pbp have disagreed on Steak, Zapata-Mays, Tom Cruise, sportsmanship, Tim Burton, Wrestling, Swimming, Cuisine of the USA, AK47, Robert Zemeckis, Mel Gibson, Gouda, Parmesan, Millimetre, Microgram. I hadn't noticed pbp and I agree on a lot because I hadn't before just now looked at who supports and opposes each thread, I only look at the articles involved not the users voting on or starting a thread, it is coincidence, we obviously have similar ideas as to what is vital. I am wondering if it coincidence you just happened to have changed you're mind and vote on a large number of posts, again, started by me. Oh dear. What is going on gabe? I really thought we had moved on, I am really not enjoying this, I tried so hard to get along, I thought you could be a better person than this. Carlwev (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to indicate one thread where you !voted in opposition to an existing !vote from PbP. I realize that not all of your !votes match, but that's not my point, Carl. Can you point me to one thread where PbP first !voted one way and then you later !voted the other? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why does that matter? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It matters to me because two editors in near complete agreement can de-rail many of the threads and block the proposals of others. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a feature of the voting system that has been devised which is illogical and unfair and prone to all kinds of gaming. Seems illogical to reproach people for making the system work to their advantage, when that is apparently what its all about. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
With the supermajority and five votes required, one additional oppose vote can have the same derailing effect pbp 03:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do I have to?? but OK, steak, cuisine of the USA, Tim Burton, Human Swimming, Robert Zemeckis, Gouda, Parmesan, why are you doing this again? Why does it matter if by coincidence we have similar views, I thought we moved on. Carlwev (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would work better with anonymous voting, but the wiki system shows all edits in history regardless of signs, and it's open to abuse via multi votes and what not. Carlwev (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous voting would be even worse in terms of allowing abuse and gaming. What we need is a system based on a stable set of criteria and arguments instead of voting. The best would be that the subsections were alotted a given number of slots and then given to the relevant wikiprojects to fill up through their internal importance ratings.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's fine Carl and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you use your !votes to reinforce what PbP wants and I wish you would think for yourself. I'll drop the point now as this will go nowhere. Sorry to have offended you. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again I might be wrong, and I'll drop it too, but you seem to be using your votes for revenge or making a point, or to get my attention or what ever, although everyone is fully free to vote as they wish and change their mind, you change your mind twice more than everyone else put together. Some of my threads you change your mind multiple times on. You often change from prev support to oppose on many of my threads minutes after I have cast my first vote, as oppose on some of yours threads (or agreed with pbp maybe?). Tell me I'm wrong please. I hope to leave this to bed now Carlwev (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • FWIW, PbP disagreed with your !vote on Tom Cruise, not the other way around, which is exactly what I said above. I suspect this is true of several of the other examples you've given above, but lets just drop-it, okay? Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We'll drop it if you agree to not revenge vote. Consider the following:

  1. Generally, I nominate low-hanging fruit for removal
  2. In nominations I start, I often give detailed reasons for addition, removal, or swap
  3. There are loads of threads Carlwev has started that I haven't even touched

If Carlwev and I happen to vote the same way on a lot of threads, it's a combination of coincidence and reasons #1 and #2 above. It's not some cabal, there's no meatpuppetry or anything. pbp 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PbP, this really doesn't concern you per se, but FTR, I wasn't accusing anyone of cabalism or meat puppetry. All I meant to convey was that I noticed a pattern whereby Carl doesn't seem to cast any !votes that oppose you, but you cast several that oppose him. For example, Carl apparently now feels that carpet is a vital article, but he did not express this until after you opposed its removal. I've freely admitted that I may well be wrong about this situation that is most likely a coincidence. I just want Carl to !vote his mind, not yours. Sorry Carl, I'll WP:AGF from here on out, okay? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
He says that, than within minutes opposes a slate of proposals either you, including changing his votes vis-a-vis the removal of James Monroe and other. It's pretty clearly retribution at this point pbp 03:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
And all this soap opera intrigue could be avoided by creating a more reasonable process. And we'd get a better list too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Maunus and I challenge PbP to show us three !votes (out of HUNDREDS) where Carl !voted against a !vote that PbP had previously cast. How could two people be soooooooo of the same mind? Wow! And really, you both think that carpet is a vital article? What about drywall, cinder blocks, subfloor, roofing shingles, particle board and 2X4s? Are these things really less vital than carpet? How would you have a carpeted house without a foundation, framing and a roof? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure I could find three such instances, but why waste my time doing so? You're the (only) one who believes Carl and I to be of the same mind, and the onus is clearly on you to prove such spurious allegations. Furthermore, wrecking the project because we happen to agree that carpeting is vital is quite unproductive. How would you like it if I voted !oppose in the remainder of proposals you've made, including the ones I actually agree with you on? You wouldn't. So don't do it to Carl and I pbp 15:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Carl and me. ;)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Threads where I have voted different to pbp, and after pbp, I found not just 3 but 8, now you're gonna say that still not many anyway and carry on. I also believe DL1 has agreed with me almost 300 times but opposed me only 25ish is he copying me? I doubt it. Carlwev (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. Add Cuisine of the USA,
  2. Remove Steak (near section bottom),
  3. Remove Tim Burton,
  4. Remove Human swimming,
  5. Remove Gouda
  6. Remove Mel Gibson
  7. Remove Parmesan
  8. Robert Zemeckis

Cutting the Regions sub-list[edit]

I agree with moving forward and I promise I'll try to keep the comments respectful, but everyone would appreciate it if you would weigh-in and !vote on the working proposal to drastically reduce the number of Regions. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc, VA/E, and the Regions proposal[edit]

By now, I see you've read User:GabeMc's comments defaming us for not agreeing 1000% with him. Apparently now, not agreeing 1000% with him is obstructionism, and this thread seems to be more about whether he or we control the project, as if anyone controls the project. He has now taken to admonishing me for not voting in threads, when it's always perfectly acceptable to sit a thread out. Furthermore, he has (often almost completely) misconstrued. It's time we took him to ANI to ask for him to be community banned from VA/E. I'm frankly surprised he hasn't whined about us to ANI or some other noticeboard. BTW, could you fwd the email I sent you back to me? I can't seem to find the diffs I gave you pbp 01:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles[edit]

To all editors displaying the "Vital Articles" template on their User Page.


I recently tried to make a change to the list of Level 3 Vital Articles by replacing the entry

" [[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]"

with a new replacement article

" [[Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]".

Although I have advertised the proposed change on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I had no response and an anonymous IP editor took it upon himself to undo my changes on grounds that my proposal did not have a "strong consensus".

Will you please look at the discussion Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Replacement article: Imperial and US customary measurement systems and add your opinion.

Martinvl (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you supported Xiongnu after I closed the discussion. Which is no problem, but I thought I'd let you know I'll probably be moving the closed discussions to the archives sometime within in the next 24 hours (they've all been up since July), so if there are any other discussions you wanted to add to, you'll have to do it quickly. Welcome back, by the way! Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There were a number of proposals at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles that you were considering supporting. Some of them now need just one more !vote to pass – if you have a chance to revisit them I'd appreciate it. Cobblet (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diwali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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:
  • of English (1998) ISBN 0-19-861263-X - p.540 "'''Diwali''' /dɪwɑːli/ (also '''Divali''') > '''noun''' a Hindu festival with lights...".</ref> also called '''Divali'''<ref name="OED-Diwali"/>
  • festival with lights...".</ref> also called '''Divali'''<ref name="OED-Diwali"/>, '''Deepavali''') or the "'''festival of lights'''", is a five-day [[Hindu festival]]<ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)[edit]

I've been busy for a while, and haven't had much time to edit. Whilst away I had many ideas some I like a lot some a little, but I don't want to annoy users or over crowd the project with over 60 threads all at once so I put them here instead. I want to know which of these articles, users like before posting them, as the talk page is already overcrowded. Presuming I have some good and bad ideas I don't want to unnecessarily flood the project with several threads that just take a nose dive. So fellow users, what ones do you like and hate out of the following list. Carlwev (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. Corrosion (added)
  2. Rust - Probably leave off, corrosion was added and covers this
  3. Lighthouse (added) - important for navigation, we have pier and harbor for coastal structures, I think Lighthouse fits in well. We also have an individual lighthouse the Lighthouse of Alexandria in arts, architecture, in the wonders of the world.
  4. Cathedral (added) religion or architecture? - we already have church in religion, but some religions have more than one building so why not this one, cathedrals are different from churches, we already have an article for Chartres Cathedral, an individual cathedral before cathedral itself is odd.
  5. Megalith (added) several users including myself think Architecture is under presented. We have a megalithic structure, in the 1000 and 10'000, Stonehenge, but not the article about the concept/style/type of structure itself. Concerns most of the worlds prehistory.
  6. Korea (added) add or swap for the Korean Peninsula. The 2 countries have only existed since world war 2. but Korea has a rich culture and history stretching 1000's of years from ancient times to modern day.
  7. Cannabis (drug) (added) - we have the plant. But we have tobacco plant and smoking, and fish, and fish (food)
  8. Gibraltar (added) confused why we would have strait of Gibraltar, but not Gibraltar itself.
  9. Optical illusion (already included)
  10. Opiod
  11. Morphine (added)
  12. Heroin (not added) - Several well known, used and studied drugs are missing.
  13. MDMA - (ecstasy)
  14. Battle of the Somme (failed)
  15. Mountaineering (added), we include people famous for climbing mountains, but not mountain climbing itself.
  16. Social security (failed)
  17. Welfare (added)
  18. Welfare state (added)
  19. Mortgage
  20. Real estate
  21. Pension (added)
  22. Rationing
  23. Life insurance
  24. Health insurance (failed)
  25. Eunuch (added)
  26. Sterilization (medicine) (added)
  27. Castration
  28. Virginity (added)
  29. Celibacy (added)
  30. Promiscuity (added) swapped, casual dating removed.
  31. Bleach (added)
  32. Diaper (added) in health and hygiene or clothing. Probably not clothing.
  33. Breastfeeding (added)
  34. Bird migration (failed) - was removed in bulk removal, hard to know whether everyone actually wanted this specific one out, but I think it should be in, we still have 150 articles about birds, including 130+ species, Bird migration is surely within the top 150 bird articles for experts or general readers alike, there are loads of books and articles about it. Some even mentioned wanting to keep it.
  35. David Attenborough (failed, nearly passed) , many film directors and actors, wildlife in fact, documentaries as a whole are largely ignored, no one is greater in this field than him, around for over 60 years and well decorated and known. More important than some of the 130+ sportsman
  36. Movie theater (added) - With over 100 actors and many movies and directors, I don't know why we wouldn't have this. We have swimming pool and swimming, sport and stadium, we should have movie and movie theater.
  37. documentary film (added)
  38. Earthworm (added)
  39. Caterpillar we have lots of types of moth and butterfly some not very notable. we have tadpole. caterpillar is more notable.
  40. Capillary (added)
  41. Homo heidelbergensis
  42. Homo habilis
  43. Linen (added)
  44. Sweater (failed)
  45. Jacket
  46. Suit (clothing)
  47. Julian Calendar (added)
  48. Workweek and weekend - odd to have singularly every month of the year and every day of the week but not this.
  49. Bull fighting (added) art or sport? i think things like this should be in before masses of sportsman like 14 tennis players, 9 basketball players 9 racing drivers and more. plus we have show jumping and rodeo, this may be equally or more significant.
  50. Plagiarism (added)
  51. Naval mine (added), we have Land mine this is equally as important. Tried to swap a while back for Molotov Cocktail, but failed. Several users said agree with add but not removal.
  52. Character (arts) (added) or Fictional character. We have Stock character a type of character. Plus over 30 characters, but not the article on the character concept itself? odd.
  53. Boiler
  54. Ventilation
  55. Carnival
  56. Cigarette (added)
  57. Phalanx
  58. Destroyer
  59. Militia
  60. Purgatory (added)
  61. National anthem (added)
  62. Tetris (added)
  63. Pac-Man
  64. Epilepsy (added)
  65. Worm hole
  66. Water wheel (failed)
  67. Qanat used from ancient times to modern day, very important across the Middle East.
  68. Hydroelectricity (added)
  69. Water mill (added)
  70. Oil platform
  71. Anvil
  72. Leaning Tower of Pisa (added)
  73. Body language
  74. Jigsaw puzzle
  75. Legend (added)
  76. Epic poetry (added)
  77. Satire (added)
  78. Detective fiction
  79. Crime fiction
  80. Black comedy
  81. Western (genre)
  82. Erotic fiction
  83. Medusa
  84. Cinderella (added)
  85. Fable (added)
  86. Sleeping Beauty
  87. Rapunzel
  88. Beauty and the Beast
  89. Hair dresser
  90. Barber
  91. Mug (failed) we added cup instead
  92. Romanesque architecture (added) these architecture styles were suggested by User:Amandajm on the arts talk page, I like them too, more the first 3
  93. Gothic architecture (added)
  94. Renaissance architecture (added)
  95. Baroque architecture
  96. Classical architecture
  97. Gothic Revival architecture
  98. Reading (process) (added)
  99. Monster (failed)
  100. Tone (linguistics) (failed)
  101. Model (profession)
  102. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (added), (the disease, or some of it's effects, is also known as emphysema), according article, 330 million people have it, kills 3 million a year, 4th highest cause of death in world.
  103. Bushido
  104. Canaan (failed)
  105. Massage (failed)
  106. Note
  107. Prehistoric art (added)
  108. Cave painting (failed)
  109. Mexican cuisine (failed), see here we already voted once and it nearly got in, 2 of the 3 opposes stated they thought it was good add but were concerned about the over count problem which is now under count any way.
  110. Cladistics (failed) if we have every taxonomic rank this is of interest too.
  111. Chlamydia infection, 215 million people are thought to have it world wide, including nearly 3 million new cases in the US every year.
  112. Philanthropy
  113. Laughter
  114. Mole (animal) (added)
  115. History of writing (added)
  116. Origin of language (added)
  117. Guinness World Records one the top selling books ever going for nearly 60 years. The top selling copyrighted book apparently.
  118. Western Sahara - I always thought this more important than Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the region has always been called Western Sahara, and still is regardless of who owns or claims it. The current claim and name only goes back to the 1970's. The article on Western Sahara is longer and in more languages, has more information in it. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the name of the self proclaimed state/government not the area. All atlases, maps and globes I ever remember seeing name it Western Sahara, I never heard of the other name until taking part in the vital project and looking to see if it was here.
  119. Hyperinflation
  120. Domestic pig (added)
  121. History of Portugal (added)
  122. Porto
  123. Bristol
  124. Cockfight
  125. Gecko (added)
  126. Weather forecasting (added)
  127. Steamboat (added)
  128. orthography (added)
  129. Public health (added)
  130. Interchange (road)
  131. Cruise ship
  132. Steam locomotive (added)
  133. Electric locomotive (failed)
  134. Diesel locomotive (failed)
  135. Shinkansen (added)
  136. High speed rail (added)
  137. Maglev
  138. Toll road
  139. Rudder
  140. Propeller
  141. wing
  142. Electric car
  143. diesel engine (added)
  144. diesel fuel
  145. Biofuel
  146. Fishing rod
  147. Fishing net, well we have numerous farmers, artists, builders, mechanics, musicians equipment?
  148. In vitro fertilisation
  149. Çatalhöyük
  150. Henna (added)
  151. Symbiosis (added)
  152. Irrational number (added)
  153. Taxidermy
  154. Oskar Schindler
  155. Hand (added)
  156. Tessellation
  157. Locomotive (added)
  158. Printer (computing) (added)
  159. Samsara
  160. Image scanner (added)
  161. Early Middle Ages (failed)
  162. High Middle Ages (failed)
  163. Late Middle Ages (failed)
  164. Mimicry (failed)
  165. Sioux, prefer this to Wounded Knee Massacre one battle and massacre involving the Sioux, and had well under 1000 deaths in total, considering battles, wars, and genocides of 100,000's or eve millions are missing?
  166. Caricature (failed)
  167. Sitar
  168. Base drum
  169. Taiko, some instruments seem more vital than some we include, we have frame drum and slit drum for example, not sure on them?
  170. Nudity (added)
  171. Naturism
  172. obstetrics (failed, already have Obstetrics and gynaecology)
  173. Midwife
  174. Impact event
  175. Battle of the Little Bighorn better than wounded knee massacre.
  176. Gothenburg
  177. Emergency medicine
  178. Paramedic
  179. Emergency medical services
  180. File (tool) (failed)
  181. Transmission (mechanics)
  182. Differential (mechanical device)
  183. Belt (mechanical)
  184. Antwerp
  185. apostasy
  186. a cappella
  187. abstinence
  188. Lent
  189. Yodelling
  190. fly fishing
  191. waterskiing
  192. Perspective (visual) or
  193. Perspective (graphical) (added)
  194. Potato chip (added)
  195. Jehovah's Witnesses
  196. Consonant (added)
  197. Vowel (added)
  198. International Phonetic Alphabet (already in)
  199. morphology (linguistics) (added)
  200. Existentialism
  201. hospice
  202. Morpheme (added)
  203. Gerontology
  204. Life expectancy
  205. Prohibition (failed)
  206. Runes (added)
  207. Tropics (added)
  208. Riddle
  209. Nursery rhyme
  210. Lullaby
  211. Human trafficking
  212. Hypnosis
  213. Ozone layer (failed)
  214. Ozone depletion (added)
  215. Professional wrestling
  216. Adultery
  217. Hebrew alphabet
  218. Abjad
  219. Meteoroid and/or
  220. Meteorite (added)
  221. Division of labour
  222. Nursing (already included)
  223. Cephalopod
  224. Decentralization (added)
  225. Sense (added)
  226. Sentence (linguistics) (added)
  227. Etymology (added)
  228. Breathing
  229. Carboniferous
  230. population
  231. world population
  232. population density
  233. Homelessness (added)
  234. Chalk
  235. Conquistador (failed)
  236. Domesday Book
  237. Embalming
  238. Sanitary sewer
  239. Spleen (added)
  240. Amniote
  241. Rallying
  242. George Armstrong Custer
  243. Gland
  244. Thyroid (added)
  245. Melatonin
  246. Pineal gland
  247. Adrenal gland (added)
  248. Census
  249. Racial segregation
  250. Tunicate
  251. Lava
  252. Automated teller machine computing/tech/finance? more people use these compared to many currencies, car companies, operating systems we have.
  253. Authoritarianism
  254. Barcode
  255. vending machine
  256. History of Morocco
  257. Jaw
  258. Punched card
  259. Remote control
  260. Radio control
  261. elbow (failed)
  262. knee (failed)
  263. tendon
  264. ligament
  265. aid
  266. Gospel
  267. aquifer
  268. William Tell
  269. Acne vulgaris
  270. scar
  271. East Germany
  272. West Germany
  273. Honour (added)
  274. Australopithecus
  275. Manatee
  276. Dugong
  277. rhyme
  278. Newcastle upon Tyne
  279. Belfast
  280. Sheffield
  281. Southampton
  282. Personality disorder
  283. Nantes
  284. Lille
  285. Montpellier
  286. Diaspora
  287. larynx
  288. Instinct
  289. nerve
I think definite adds include Cinderella, character, Korea, cannabis, fable, legend, satire, Leaning Tower, Gibraltar, and bird migration. Also one or two of the welfare-related ones, and one of the water ones. Unsure about the genres of art and architecture. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Just goes to show how much work we still have left to do! The only things I'm pretty sure right now I'd oppose are 7, 14, and 86-88. Also Human evolution might be a better choice than 41 and 42. Everything else I'd probably support, at least as a swap for something else on the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Carlwev. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would support most of these at a quick glance but as with every proposal I'd have to compare them with similar articles in the VA list and then decide. I agree with opening up the discussions gradually. I also strongly agree with the notion that the broad type of article is nearly always more vital than specific examples (eg lighthouse more important than a famous lighthouse). Gizza (t)(c) 01:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW, do you want to open a proposal to change the threshold for consensus to two-thirds? It appears there's support for it. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There's quite a few articles in your updated version here that I like Carlwev. Runes, henna, hand, hypnosis, Samsara nudity and life expectancy are particularly interesting. Btw, International Phonetic Alphabet is listed under "Language" and Caricature has been proposed. Gizza (t)(c) 08:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Redistributing articles in the Everyday life section of vital topics[edit]

What do people think of some of the following. We could get rid of the A, P and EL section completely, it's an odd mish mash

  1. Move TV and radio shows to arts, near films
  2. Move all mass media to arts.
  3. Move videogames, or all entertainment/recreation to arts.
  4. Rename arts to, something else perhaps "Art and Entertainment" or another variation, using some of the words: arts, entertainment, recreation, media, sport.
  5. Move museums to arts.
  6. Move colors to visual arts.
  7. Move food to health in biology, rename food and health.
  8. Move timekeeping to measurement.
  9. Clothes and household items ?? not sure ?? put with culture in social science

The list shows my summarized thoughts, my reasons are: This page How are TV shows not in the same vein as movies, they both are filmed acting with a story etc? Is theatre and film not a form entertainment. Are videogames not an artform, they have story like books and film, they have creative aspects, level design, graphic artists, sound/music artists etc. They are a published medium, you can buy a published game like music, film, books. Magazines are vaguely similar to books. There are some topics that are blurred between sport and performing art, Pro wrestling, acrobatics, bullfighting, Rodeo, and figure skating which is a dance form, dance is a performing art. Possibly all sport is watched like a performing art. Putting them on the same page would be good I think. Films, and books which are in arts are published media, entertainment, and an artform but so too are TV shows, Radio shows, videogames and magazines which are in Social sci, Mass media and Everyday life, recreation now. Museum is under art in the 1000. They contain art, and are buildings also, why not put them in arts perhaps between visual arts and works of architecture of which they slightly both. At the moment TV and mass media is with politics and government, social science, Law, Business and economics and war, doesn't seem to fit. At the moment recreation sport and entertainment is with time keeping, days and months etc, language, sexuality, psychology, food, family, ethnology. I think art and entertainment is a better pairing than recreation with those.

We could completely empty the A, P and EL page like we did with measurement, and divide to other areas, it is an odd mish mash. Some to Social Sci as pbp says, some to arts. Timekeeping, could feasibly go with measurement, calendar near year, days of the week near day. Food feasibly in health and biology, since so many plants are foods anyway, and things like vitamin, hunger, nutrition are relevant to both. Only house hold items and clothes I cannot place, although if knife is in technology why isn't fork and spoon, some clothing stuff like button and velcro overlap into tech.

Like the ideas or not?

Carlwev (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to remind you (since this is something I had also neglected till recently) that when you're adding and removing articles from the list, you might also want to add/remove the Vital Articles template on the talk pages of those articles. I don't know if Ypnbot can do that stuff automatically – it can add missing templates, but can it remove ones that don't belong anymore? Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:BromleyOrpington.GIF or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Personal Name for Name[edit]

On the level 3 vital article talk page, you wrote Support in the Oppose section. Did you want to support or oppose the proposal? Thanks. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Vital 10,000: horse[edit]

Hi Carl, I'm new to the vital articles project, but I am realizing that a discussion of the horse articles in general is making me think long and hard about which of our 3- or 4000 articles in WikiProject equine would meet a "vital" criteria. Rather than the piecemeal discussion at that talk page, I'd like to brainstorm if there is a way to figure out the most vital articles we have (in terms of need, even if some aren't yet quite up to snuff). The current collection is a mishmash and includes some things not vital (Secretariat) but excludes some things that are (e.g. Domestication of the horse, horse collar, Horses in warfare. There is also the question of what categories each need to go into. I'd like to chat about this and see how WPEQ can better understand the vital articles project and make appropriate recommendations. May I also draw your attention to [1] Montanabw(talk) 03:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coccinellidae 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:
  • ' /,kɒksɪ'nɛlɪd/ '''noun''' a beetle of a family (coccinelidae) that includes the ladybirds".</ref>) are a [[family (biology)|family]] of small [[beetle]]s, ranging from 0.8 to 18&nbsp;mm (0.0315

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Just noticed the latest change to your user page. Best wishes, Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seven Cities of Gold game cover.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Seven Cities of Gold game cover.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Vital article tags[edit]

Make sure you don't forget to tag and de-tag the talk pages of the relevant articles when you're adding or removing them from the list. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mario is Missing! NES cover.PNG[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Mario is Missing! NES cover.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)