User talk:DexDor

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


Happy New Year, DexDor![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-centric wording AME[edit]

Hello,


Not to be rude, however I highly suggest that you do some homework and read the Air Navigation Regulations 1919 - which is the root for the "Engineer" in civilian aviation to be capitolised.. and the UK "English" in the ANR 1919 (published April 29, 1919) pre-dates the signing of the October 13, 1919 Paris conference on Civilian Aviation...

However, prior to this "Engineering" and "Engineers" were used in UK parliamentary documents and Acts... going back some 350 years in the London Gazette and the Hansard record you will find the capitoisation of "Engineers"... you will also find that it was defined as a "TRADE" in government documents (UK Board of Trade held the standard for their TRADES training as a department of the UK government) before it became a "Professional Association of..."

The "Engineer" "Engineers" "Corps of ROYAL Engineers" "RE" and the modern "REME" as well as the "AME" in the English vocabulary all come from one derivitive, and that is NOT the P.Eng of today, nor is it by way of any common person's decision.

The terminology for "Engineers" in the UK - and subsequently the Commonwealth all come from the "Declaration of an English Monarch", the King! and these terms have been a part of England and the English language since well prior to when they received their charter in the 1700's.

Engineers and Engineering in England originated well before 1066 and are tied into the Roman Military Engineers [1] who came to the lands that we now call England as a part of the Roman Legions. Even Parliamentarians recognise "Engineers were not to be made in a day, or by an act of parliament" [2]

From the Military Engineers of Rome, evolved every single one of the Engineering terms and disciplines of today.. the Roman Engineers were the first that we see in England and that we know of by way of recorded and verifiable history.

Subsequently, in 1803 / 1804 the British Military "Royal Staff Corps" evolved from the Royal Engineers. "The Royal Staff Corps [3] was neither more nor less than a branch growing out of the Engineers, and formed for the purpose of patronage" [4]


The AMT is an "American" magazine.. and contains articles and text written by the common "American English" speaker.. Americans tend to not speak the "Queen's English".. and have polluted the language.

Today, the words people use sometimes do not reflect their origin or their original meaning - however, the AME is a British held and originated word with regard to miitary and civilian aviation and its root can be found in published documents so numerous that you haven't enough space here to hold them all, however I can and will see if I can add every single reference for the "Engineer" and Engineers" in British legislative and Crown documents from 1715 onwards if that is what it takes..

Be prepared, the documented history will floor you.

The London Gazette "The Gazette - the UK's official public record since 1665" [5] records at least 781,751 instances and the Hansard 109,985 instances of potential reference.

Between 1700 and 1930 there are 102894 recorded instances of "Engine" and similarities in the London Gazette [6]


For the period 1800 thru 1900 in the Hansard record there are 10,670 instances of instances of "Engine" and similarities......

CanadianAME (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

References

WP:TLDR. Please see MOS:CAPS. It is common in the real world for extra capitalization to be used in some places (e.g. job adverts often capitalize each word of job titles - "Foobar Ltd have vacancies for Factory Operatives, Security Guards, Maintenance Engineers, ..."). You appear to be suggesting that every reference to "engineer", "engineering" etc in Wikipedia should have a capital "E" - i.e. that "An engineer is a practitioner of engineering, ..." should be changed to "An Engineer is a practitioner of Engineering, ...". That's not gonna fly. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The official and legal terminology for the "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" in the UK and EU[edit]

For the proper and formal reference to be used for the capitalization of "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer" i direct you to read The European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007 (EU Statutory Instrument No.2781) "SCHEDULE 1 Regulations" 4 and 6 "REGULATED PROFESSIONS" PART 1 - "PROFESSIONS REGULATED BY LAW OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY" wherin the chart of recognized Professions (“profession” includes occupation or trade) you will find the correct and legally recognised term of refernce for the United Kingdom and the European Union to be "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer"[1] which is the correct way to spell it or the RAeS reference [2]

Without the AME - NOTHING FLIES...

CanadianAME (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

References

If you disagree with the MOS (e.g. MOS:JOBTITLES) then I suggest you discuss it on the MOS's talk page. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The AME is professional training for Regulatory Compliance and carries weighty responsibilities. Persons with University Degree's, whether Masters or PhD, still require 2+ years of additional additional training, testing and licensing to act in the capacity of the AME in civil aviation.

There can be no Certificate of Conformance, Certificate of Mainenance Release, Certificate of Release to Service, Fitness to fly or Airworthiness statementthat can be signed except by AMEs. The AME license is a legal document used to maintain, overhaul, modify, replace, sign and certify any aircraft as fit to fly.

Aviation is divided into three distinct areas of engineering:

1) The Aircraft design - on paper projections and calculatiosn by persons working as Aeronautical Engineers (not just Professional university educated Aeronautical Engineers either) but thousands of people who work on design prototypes in paper before even getting into the wind tunnels and simulator.

2) Assembly work: the engine, airframe, electrical, avionics, pressurization, control surface installation.. Everything mathematically positioned to get an aircraft ready for test flight. Well before before an aircraft “Type” ever sees the air as a flying machine.Putting these bits and pieces together are done by highly experienced mechanics (A&P and A&P with I.A inAmerica) commonly called Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (UK and Commonwealth Nations plus others) no matter if they are "Licensed on Type" or Licensed to inspect and certify.

3) The Aircraft Flying off the assembly line and recorded on an nation's aircraft register , this is the stage where “civil aviation” comes into play. By International design and standard (ICAO), personnel who are required for work on an aircraft at this stage, the AMEs, pilots and indirectly the Air traffic controllers, must ALL be licensed by their "State" to accompish their function in the aviation industry. These three classes of personnel at this stage are recognized by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

Aeronautical engineers and other engineers; be it a PhD holder needs to obtain a license in addition to their P.Eng in order to be able to work in this third stage, However many University educated Engineers and others who could not obtain an AME license (Because it is hard WORK) and who do not understand it's role in PUBLIC SAFETY have, thru the years since the 1940's, degraded the AME license in an apparent effort to justify their belief that Universityeducated "Aeronautical Engineers" are the only "Engineers" that count.. subsequently reducing the license issued by the State to the AME as a certificate of competence and finely honed skill achieved thru a MINIMUM 2 year apprenticeship followed by a series of Oral, Practical and written exams (which were the initial requirements for the issuance of an AME License) to what is now little more than a "Here's your Lolly" for passing some 2 pages of multiple choice questions with NO Oral, Practical or written - long form examination - which would attest to the applicants skill and compeence AFTER their term of apprenticeship... All this to try and downplay and degrade the AME in an effort for someone else to justify his position. Usually that person knows nothing about performing aircraft maintenance, aircraft maintenance safety standards and about the profession of AME they frequently claim to be "supervising".


You can disagree with me, and other people who are subject matter experts and you can continually refute historically accurate and readily avail. information which substantiates what is being said to you and refuse to even look into the documents.

History doesn't lie, but editors can and do.. or just neglect to take note of certain facts. If you are an AME state your license number and issuing agency so it can be verified to determine if you are an subject matter expert on the AME.

CanadianAME (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Canadian AME

Your revert regarding "Category:Internet events"[edit]

Reading your pages here, categorization would seem to be an area of interest to you. Wikipedia's most confused categorizations are "Internet" and "World Wide Web". Just look at Category:World Wide Web - and that's only the top level! Category:Internet is in far better shape only because I've kept it so (apologies for blowing my own horn, but - yes- I've edited/deleted hundreds of "Internet" categorizations). I think you'd enjoy the challenge of cleaning up Category:World Wide Web. No response necessary; I'll not be back. 73.71.159.231 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

revisions to category:Deputy directors of the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China[edit]

Hello, DexDor. The category has been expanded to 5 articles and there is a parent category now. Zee money (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Added more References for the Draft[edit]

Hi DexDor,

Thank you for reviewing the page Heavy Vehicle unit Tax. I have added more reliable references to the page. Advise. Thanks Ifabi2016 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Smart Cities Template[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that the Template:Smart cities has been put up of deletion.

Recently I had created the Template:Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities without noticing that a similar Template:Smart cities was already existing (although it was incomplete at that time). My template is complete in full sense and I have already inserted it in almost 40% of the pages mentioned in the template, on the other hand Template:Smart cities in not inserted on any city pages mentioned in it.

You gave example of Bhopal, asserting that it has got too many templates, but I want to tell you that nor all the million plus urban agglomerations in India are included in the Smart Cities Mission (eg. Bengaluru/Bangalore) neither all the cities to be developed as smart cities are million plus agglomerations (eg. Pasighat). Thus, I think it is okay that both the templates are present on that page.

Why the Template:Smart cities should be deleted instead of Template:Cities in India to be or developed as Smart Cities:

  • The template in not present on the pages of the cities to be developed as smart cities.
  • After completing the list of qualified cities it once again list them in phase-wise manner which means all the hundred cities will be listed again in three rows (phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3), which is pointless!
  • Most of the cities have no internal wiki link or have disambiguation links.
  • Details are wrong. The title of the template mentions "Proposed smart cities in India - Phase 1 (98 cities)" but only 20 cities have been qualified for phase 1 [1] not all. The last two rows tries to list them the first phase in haphazard manner!

Wiki.Gunjan (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Subpages[edit]

These Education pages you've nominated are not G8s - they're subpages of talk pages, not talk pages of non-existent pages, and were created that way because the namespace only permits subpages in the talk space. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda/Ian. Can you provide some more info about what these pages are/were trying to achieve (and whether they are still wanted) ? A page such as Education Program talk:University of California, Berkeley/MCB 200A: Fundamentals of Molecular and Cell Biology (Fall 2014)/support doesn't (technically) appear to be a subpage as it has no "breadcrumb" link to a parent page (cf a page such User talk:DexDor/Archive 2011). It also appears to have no inlinks from other (EnWp) pages. The parent (i.e. this) also doesn't follow usual talk-page conventions, has no inlinks - and its "parent" is a redlink (this) - as is its "grandparent" (this).
Note: The namespace (446) is not one of those listed here. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The way we used those 'support' subpages was via the {{course link}} template. For example: Education Program:University of California, Berkeley/MCB 200A: Fundamentals of Molecular and Cell Biology (Fall 2014)  supported by Wiki Ed. We don't actively use this system any more, but there was a bot task that replaced links on the education noticeboard with that template, so that people could easily see which courses were supported by Wiki Education Foundation when they were being discussed on the noticeboard. Courses that were never linked to from the noticeboard won't show the /support subpage as being linked to; it wouldn't really be a problem to delete such pages, but there isn't much reason to IMO. Some other talk subpages (not /support) are actually being transcluded in namespace 446, but may not show up as linked because of the quirks of the EP extension (for example, this one); deleting those can result in breaking the course pages themselves. (I fixed that list to note EP as one of those namespaces without subpages.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sage. Fyi One of the things I do in wp is look for unusual pages (e.g. pages at unusual combinations of categories and namespaces) as this finds many pages that are in the wrong namespace, are incorrectly categorized, are bits of defunct initiatives (that are cluttering the place up), vandalism etc (see User:DexDor/FHL for more info). Of course, whilst doing this I don't want to do anything that causes problems for editors doing good work.
(IMO) either this is a valid use of talk pages (in which case it should be documented - e.g. at Help:Using talk pages) or it is not a valid use of talk pages (in which case they should be deleted). DexDor (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Biology portal[edit]

my question has everything to do with biology and is a rebuking of the referenced information through mathematics. Please put what I posted back. It is entirely biology related and perhaps some one that cares will see it. As I do not have a p.h.D. there is little outlet to refute such information, but I do have a calculator and know math. Therefore I reach out to the information community. If you don't care to read and check the referenced information's accuracy then ignore it. You don't have to delete the discussion. (Crlinformative (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

Hi Crlinformative, the portal talk page is for discussion about the portal page. I suggest you put a note referring to Talk:Folliculogenesis at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology (but read WP:OR first). DexDor (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read that and I have posted to folliculogenesis talk. I don't care about OR, if Wikipedia is going to claim that a cell count of 1,000,000 primordial follicles is an accurate count them someone needs to review the mathematical implications of such. Regardless of what source said it. You may do the math top, become enlightened on the situation. (Crlinformative (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

Low-flying aircraft listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Low-flying aircraft. Since you had some involvement with the Low-flying aircraft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:JournalMJ[edit]

Hello, DexDor. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "JournalMJ".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 22:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Category discussion:Mammals of Iran[edit]

While I've closed the above category as delete, I noticed there is a well-developed tree of Category:Mammals by country. Are you considering nominating all of them? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should categorize an article about a species of mammal by which small (on a global scale) countries it is found in (except possibly where the mammal is endemic to that country) - for one thing that can produce categories for very small areas (e.g. Ceuta/Jersey/Akrotiri&Dhekelia); we should instead categorize by large regions (e.g. continents). In some cases a country is a large region so Category:Mammals of Australia is probably ok. As more of these categories are deleted the note at the top of Category:Mammals by country may need strengthening. I'm working my way through fauna/flora-by-countries categories (e.g. there's current CFDs for some insect and bird categories). Depending on how the current birds CFD goes I may do a similar CFD for mammals of Sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. see how many categories African buffalo is in). DexDor (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Category: Birds of Africa[edit]

So, now that you've done away with the categories for the individual countries in Africa, are the Americas next? And how about "Birds of the United Kingdom"? If you're going to lump categories, it should be the same for every continent! MeegsC (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And it might have been nice to notify some of the wikiprojects that might use those categories. They probably wouldn't have disagreed, but it would have been polite to solicit comment. The above was closed with precisely one vote. Yours. MeegsC (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Category:Birds of the United Kingdom is a redlink. I have been doing similar CFDs for different parts of the World (e.g. for Europe see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_8#Category:Birds_of_Lithuania) and also for different types of fauna/flora (it's not just birds that have been overcategorized in this way). Note: Many of these categories (not specifically the bird ones) were created by "problem editors" (in particular, Nono64/NotWith) rather than as part of a wikiproject-organised categorization (in fact if you look through the archives of WT:BIRDS you'll see that members of that project generally aren't keen on this categorization - e.g. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_65#Category_.27Birds_of_Ukraine.27). WikiProject Birds is automatically alerted to pages at XfD - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Article_alerts (plus, of course, anyone who has these pages watchlisted or visits them during the CFD period will see that they are at CFD). Note: when I have notified wikiprojects in the past (even when asking them a specific question about categorization) I have usually/always had no response (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_67#Some_birds-of-country_categories_at_CfD). DexDor (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't think anybody would argue — most of the "lists" are incomplete, and unlikely ever to be complete. And for widespread species, listing them in every country they've ever occurred would lead to a ridiculously bloated number of categories. However, I do think it's bad form to do this only for Africa, and that's all that's been suggested. There are still plenty of European categories (Russia, Lithuania, Birds in the United Kingdom, etc.), so if CFDs have been suggested for Europe, I'm assuming they must not have been successful. Why should it be okay for European countries to have distinct "Birds of" categories and not African countries? MeegsC (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're getting at - e.g. saying "only for Africa" when I've already linked to the equivalent Europe discussion. Whilst the particular CFD you refer to concerned birds/Africa it's just one of a series of CFDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_10#Category:Insects_of_Oman). Attempting to do all regions/animals in one huge CFD (covering hundreds/thousands of categories) would not be practical - any objections (see here for an example where there were objections) would be likely to make a confused discussion and there would likely to be objections from editors at CFD saying that it's too large and needs to be renominated in smaller chunks.
The last part of your comment above makes no sense as (1) Russia is partly in Europe and partly in Asia so cannot simply be upmerged to Europe (see here for an example of how a similar category has been dealt with), (2) Category:Birds of Lithuania is a redlink (so what category are you referring to? - it would be very helpful if you included links in your comments) and (3) Category:Birds in the United Kingdom is a different sort of category (intended for articles that are specifically about the UK - e.g. Kingston parakeets). DexDor (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well, the category "Birds of Lithuania" has been removed since I looked last week. And I now see your point about Russia (and presumably Georgia, Armenia and Azerbiajan fall into the same split-continent category). But Birds of Switzerland is still there, and that one clearly shouldn't be! Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Birds_of_Europe. And there should be a clear explanation as to why some countries are included and others shouldn't be; otherwise, nationalists are likely to reintroduce categories for the countries that have been deleted! MeegsC (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Birds of Lithuania has not existed since it was deleted in 2014. There are thousands of categories below Category:Biota by country that probably should be upmerged/deleted, but IMO the Switzerland one is very low priority. Why don't you take it to CFD? I'm not sure what you mean by "a clear explanation as to why some countries are included and others shouldn't be" other than something along the lines of "Hundreds/thousands of biota-of-country categories were created (mostly by Nono64/NotWith in 2011-2014); many have since been deleted, but as of 2016 many have not yet been taken to CFD." (and where would you put such a notice?). If a (nationalistic) editor recreates a category then they are ignoring a bold "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." notice which includes a link to the relevant CFD etc - so an "explanation" (presumably, on some obscure categorization guidance page) would be unlikely to make much difference. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway[edit]

In the recently concluded Cfd discussion (I just missed out on adding a "Strong Keep" before the discussion was closed), you wrote that there was no mention of his inclusion in the walkway in the Don Bradman article. However the Bradman article seems to have been written by cricket tragics and doesn't mention either of the Bradman Collection websites, at the (recently redeveloped) Adelaide Oval, or the State Library of SA, or even the Sir Donald Bradman Drive, so it's not really comprehensive. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you would have !voted strong keep at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_19#Category:Jubilee_150_Walkway. Please see User:DexDor/AwardCat. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gadget-Cat-a-lot[edit]

Hi, the Gadget-Cat-a-lot can modify just 200 pages at the same time.

Haw i can do to modify all pages of a category at the same time?

-- Smith 18:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.71.134.190 (talk)

I don't know anything about Gadget-Cat-a-lot. I suggest you register as an editor; that would be a step towards getting access to some tools. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
One way, if you think an existing category is wrong, is to make a nomination at WP:CFD. Once agreement is reached, the task is passed to a bot to do the hard work. If you get stuck on the CFD process, leave me a message and I'll be pleased to help. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Endemic beetles of France[edit]

I have nominated Category:Endemic beetles of France, which you created, for speedy renaming to Category:Endemic beetles of Metropolitan France. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RAF categories[edit]

Please put your deletion of RAF categories on hold. Military service is defining for most people who served, even if they only served for a few years. It's also something that interests many people and deleting these cats is doing them a disservice. I have started a discussion about this. Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Military service categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Necrothesp, I have not been deleting RAF categories; I've been removing category tags from articles (per WP:COP#N). What other occupations people (e.g. Bernard Matthews) have done (i.e. other than the occupation(s) for which they are notable) is not normally considered to be a defining characteristic for the purpose of categorization in this encyclopedia (some people have many other occupations mentioned in their article). Spending time in the armed services is an appropriate thing to mention in the article text (alongside info about parents, marriage, children, illnesses etc), although note that many articles about French, German, Israeli, etc people don't even mention their period of military service or just touch on it briefly (e.g. "After military service he joined ..."). Apart from WP:NON-DEFINING there's a more specific guideline at WP:COP#N (and also the essay WP:DNWAUC).
Regarding your edits [2][3]: Please could you read and follow WP:REVEXP - especially if you think it's appropriate to revert an edit that has an edit summary referring to the relevant guideline. Please also see WP:MINOR (changes to categorization and reverts are not normally marked as minor). DexDor (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
You are deleting text from an article, are you not? Whether something is non-defining or not is entirely down to interpretation. I would say that military service is extremely defining (I would certainly expect my military and police service to be categorised if anyone ever wrote an article about me, even though they are not my main career!). Would you say receipt of a gallantry medal is defining? Surely it is, even if the recipient is not a regular member of the armed forces. If that is defining is then the fact of military service not defining? Of course it is. Just as where someone went to school or university is defining (surely we'd just delete all these thousands of categories otherwise, since nobody goes to school or university professionally). Discussing such moves before you impose them unilaterally is always a good idea. Our guidelines are not set in stone and not everyone thinks as you do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
When I refer to "article text" (e.g. in a phrase such as "this characteristic isn't even mentioned in the article text") that is specifically excluding the category tags - so no, these edits are not removing article text. Do you think that, for example Clint Eastwood should be categorized as a firefighter? (and, if so, should he also be categorized as lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk?) Alumni categories are a different matter - I'm not keen on them, but they don't have the potential to put so many category tags on articles and they don't mix up people who are notable in that field with people who are not (e.g. the firefighters category, before I cleaned it out, contained articles about everything from notable firefighters to articles that made no mention of firefighting - example) - besides which see WP:OSE. Other users also remove non-defining occupation categories from articles (example). DexDor (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I missed this one [4] and have only just found it - I would appreciate a sense of collaboration here please - most talk page space in wikipedia is identified as having a project for assessment, and where assessment is not relevent, at least some form of connectedness on talk page space in relation to the task - if you are keen to remove the project tag I had placed, that in effect removed that page from any other in talk page space - - and you seem happy with that? I would have thought that even admin status pages are better connected with a project - rather than float unconnected? I am interested in your response, as this might lead to a proposal at project council for a specific wikiproject administration - where all non article, administrative items that are currently wavering between an innapropriate wikiproject wikipedia or simply red link talk page - can be captured and linked JarrahTree 00:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A really good example is the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Religion_Wikipedia_administration - which if I was in my usual project tagging - I would have tagged it with the religion project tag and rushedon to the next one. What I would like to suggest is that the xx wikipedia adminitration categories that have been created have a universal blue 'admin category' warning on the mainspace, and the possibility of a wikiproject administation and wikiproject religion project tags on the talk page - and so a whole range of 'overview' cat pages have a 'home' of sorts that could help remove either wikiproject council or wikiproject wikipedia project tags - and become more 'ordered' in that the context of the three is more clearly delineated. As it stands, it looks like apart from yourself and harej, there is little interest in the context or usage of the projects anyways... If the suggestion doesnt seem to daft to you, it would be good to be able to tag talk pages of admin cats so as to identify clearly - I would imagine like the council project there is no need for any assessment components in the template of the tag - so it could be as simple as possible JarrahTree 00:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi JarrahTree, WikiProject Wikipedia is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of itself" (like WikiProject London is for about improving articles about London). The project page shows that they are interested in articles about Wikipedia (e.g. Essjay controversy). Thus, do you really think that Category:Wikipedia administration by topic is within the scope of that wikiproject? We could ask that wikiproject to confirm its scope, but to me it seems pretty clear and the wikiproject doesn't appear to be very active.
Most articles (encyclopedia content) (and their categories) can be tagged with at least one wikiproject (because we have wikiprojects covering just about every encyclopedic topic) - but, many aspects of Wikipedia administration don't have a corresponding wikiproject - e.g. Category:Wikipedia OTRS doesn't have a wikiproject tag on its talk page. If there's no wikiproject covering a particular page then it shouldn't be tagged for a (inappropriate) wikiproject.
I doubt that a wikiproject for Wikipedia administration would be useful - and would advise against creating such a wikiproject just to fix the "problem" of talk pages with no wikiproject tag. If you dislike seeing red then just putting a space character on the talk page may "fix" that.
I've now tagged (the talk page of) Category:Religion_Wikipedia_administration for WikiProject Religion. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your considered response. Inasmuch as you may be skeptical of having wikipediaadministration tags - that in effect are not a project but something similar to the wthe council tag for project admin and project overview cats - I am still interested despite your caution on the matter. If it was not an actual project but simply a tag, surely that could be helpful and of no harm to anyone? Something like this is not a project, but an identifier that this category/article is relevant to the administration of wikipedia and should not be considered yo be anything than a 'marker'  ?? JarrahTree 09:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Anybody who gets to, for example, Category talk:Wikipedia OTRS probably understands what that page is and/or would not be helped by the sort of notice you propose. I can't see a good reason for adding such a tag to talk pages and can see several (minor) reasons for not doing so - there's more useful things you could be doing, it would add to watchlist noise for other editors, it adds unnecessary clutter to the talk page, it makes pages inconsistent (e.g. we would inevitably end up with a mix of pages with no tag, pages with wikiproject tag(s), pages with your new tag and pages with both wikiproject tag(s) and your new tag). We shouldn't be adding more complexity to Wikipedia infrastructure unless there is a clear benefit in doing so. DexDor (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Whoa 'my new tag', I am not even gong further than here - so the tag doesnt exist, and I can see your line of thought, so we have different ways of dealing with the way talk pages, and structure and how wikipedia exists. Bit like the fact we have new category creators of hundreds of thousands of edits who have never been on a talk page of what they create, c'est la vie or whatever - as to utility and benefit, phew that sounds like an afternoon over a beer/coffee/tea rater than here. The fact that you are assuming that the possible tag would be on a page with a project tag for a start means we are not even on the same page (it was suggested only for those that are admin that do not 'fit' into project space). Hey have a good day - until we meet again, in whatever circumstance JarrahTree 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Roman fort cats[edit]

Just as a headsup, cats like Category:Roman legions' camps in France have been emptied as part of an unauthorised series of attempted moves/renames by now-blocked User:Rjdeadly. I've suggested that WP:CGR might want to try and sort out the mess, but I thought you should know just in case you come across any similar cats. Le Deluge (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Per WP:DCAT, "Most disambiguation pages do not need to be placed into any categories other than those generated by the template. If such cases do arise (for example, specific categories of personal names that do not have corresponding template parameters), then the additional categories should be placed after the template." (bolding mine) I didn't write that, BTW. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)