User talk:Kjell Knudde

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

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Kjell Knudde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gman124 talk 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional obese characters[edit]

I have nominated Category:Fictional obese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional obese characters[edit]

You, and 81.240.203.129 - if you're actually not the same person, have created and been adding people to a category which was already once created and deleted on 3 July, 2008; this category has again been voted for deletion. Please don't repeat this as doing so will result in a 4im, Only warning. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Angelfood McSpade[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Angelfood McSpade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

How notable is this? There are no references, first of all. Also, since Robert Crumb is still alive, and due to the racially-charged subject matter, this article is a BLP nightmare.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. MaenK.A.Talk 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gymnastics, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Deaths in 2010, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Albatross deleted speedily as it was a recreation of a deleted article[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python) Dlohcierekim 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Two L'emmerdeur articles[edit]

That is funny. I've been work on the main Brel article for the past month, and was in the process of creating articles for Brel's other films when I saw you created a link for L'Emmerdeur. So I created the article from that link after correcting the spelling (French title formats per [Manual of Style]).

I merged your content into my article, using your structure and additional credits and information. I also replaced my French character roles with your English translations. Take a look and see what you think. Sorry for the confusion.

Rjaklitsch (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Edouard Fournier[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Louis Edouard Fournier requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant[edit]

Hi. You made an Article for creation page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant (2011-10-16), but it was never actually submitted for a review.

I have submitted it just now, so you should get feedback soon. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 21:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Simon Sturtevant[edit]

Hello Kjell Knudde. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Simon Sturtevant.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Snow White and the Seven Perverts for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow White and the Seven Perverts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow White and the Seven Perverts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nero by Marc Sleen, publicity image.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Nero by Marc Sleen, publicity image.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Adhemar (comic book character).gif[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Adhemar (comic book character).gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Lambik.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lambik.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What a "gag cartoon" is[edit]

You have recently been adding the genre "gag cartoon" to the listing for many comic strips. If you check the link that that goes to, you'll find that it applies to single-panel cartoons, and should not be applied to many of the strips you're applying it to, which have several panels in the typical installment. Please stop these additions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I make a page for gag comics in general? Because this is the format I mean: comic strips that build to a single gag, either in one picture ("Family Circus"), three or four images ("Peanuts", "Hagar"), one page ("The Smurfs"),... In other words humoristic comics that generally don't follow continuous stories. User talk:Kjell Knudde 24 August 2015 (UTC).

While I could see creating some sort of delineation, it might be trickier to apply than you might think. For example, Peanuts, while definitely hitting a humor point every day, uses many of its dailies for multi-day storylines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way - could you kindly undo the "gag cartoon" additions to Peanuts yourself? I have a WP:COI on that particular topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's true some kind of story line could be followed over the courses of several "Peanuts" gags, but the most important distinction between a gag comic and other humoristic comic strips is perhaps the lack of a "to be continued..." below the page. The gags can be enjoyed out of context, even if you missed a few episodes. It's strange that there isn't an article for "gag comics" yet. Especially since it's such a popular format for daily or weekly magazines. I found articles for it on other language pages of Wikipedia too. Perhaps I could translate one of them. -- User:Kjell Knudde 16:50 24 August 2015 (UTC).

I found what I meant: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gag-a-day. I'll change what needs to be changed. -- User:Kjell Knudde 17:01 24 August 2015 (UTC).

That's a separation that you get in the Europe that we really don't have in the US; we don't have marked-as-to-be-continued humor stories. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's where the confusion stems from. I noticed the same thing with other articles about comics. Outside Europe people don't understand the "album" format either. Much like newspaper comics aren't a separate genre in Europe like they are in the USA. -- User:Kjell Knudde 17:01 24 August 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Agreed; this "Gag-a-day comics" category has been occasionally applied recently for inexplicable reasons. Little Annie Fanny was assigned this category before it was rightfully reverted. And there is no reason to repeatedly assign a correlation between an editor's nationality and their types of edits. You don't know if their nationality has anything to do with their edits unless they tell you it does. It doesn't matter anyway; it's what an editor provides from their research of the reliable sources that matters. Prhartcom (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
With this particular discussion the matter was already solved a few days ago, when Gertler showed me that "gag cartoon" was not what I assumed it to be. And as I promised I set right what I promised to do. Anyway, to make matters clear: I only talked about a difference in interpretation based on culture. I never said anybody was wrong in this discussion, nor did I presume that every misinterpretation made is solely a matter of cultural differences. By the way, I have a slight fear that you feel offended about my words, Prhartcom: I sincerly hope this is not the case. I have no intention to start fights and hope we can all get along fine in the future. I also have no problems with America's comic book culture. -- User:Kjell Knudde 14:49 26 August 2015 (UTC).

"comic" "comics"[edit]

Hi. Thanks for creating the "comic debuts" categories. They'll all have to be moved to "comics debuts", though, as "comics" refers to the medium, and "comic" can be confused with "comedic" or "comedian". "Comics" is an uncountable noun when referring to the medium, and as such is a noun adjunct when used as an adjective. This is well-established usage that you'll see in the works Eisner, Spiegelman, McCloud, and others. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the categories have been listed as "comic debuts" for a long time now. Check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1910s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1920s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1930s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1940s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1950s_comics_debuts, here, and so on. Nowhere else is the word "comics" used. I'm not going to argue against a decision that has been made in the past about the matter. I understand your point and I see why "comics" would fit better, especially since we now have a confusing situation where "Category: 1950s comics debuts" for instance, leads to subcategories named "1950 comic debuts", "1951 comic debuts", "1952 comic debuts",... I think it would be best to bring it to a forum and ask for a namechange of all these categories. Because consistency in categories is what is favorable. If other users agree (and are willing to change all the articles) it's fine with me. - User:Kjell Knudde 13:55 25 August 2015 (UTC).

  • You can see it's a serious problem, then, if the names of the categories are in conflict. I've just moved all the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s to "comics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you only made it worse. Now all the articles don't have their proper categories anymore. Each one of them ought to be redirected too individually. User:Kjell Knudde 14:12 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No, there are bots that will fix the redirects automatically. The articles will be fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, don't forget all the other decades too. They go on before 1910 and after the 1930s too. User:Kjell Knudde 14:25 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi, I'm curious why you are creating categories like Category:1973 comics debuts when we already have Category:1973 comic debuts, etc., etc. You are creating an awful lot of unnecessary work for yourself and creating duplication which then needs fixing. If you think all "XXXX comic debut categories" should be changed to "XXXX comics debuts" then you can get a robot to make all the relevant changes so you can go and start a discussion over here: WP:CFD. I have no objections to the changes (I started most of them) but we do need them to be consistent across the site and not have categories duplicating others. You could probably request a speedy rename to get it all done. Emperor (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Emperor well, it wasn't my idea. As you can read from the comments above it was originally user Curly Turkey who wanted all the categories to be changed into comics debuts rather than "comic debuts". I was against the idea, especially since I too favor consistency on Wikipedia and could predict that he wouldn't have the energy to make all of the neccessary changes and someone else would have to clean up the rest. And indeed, before I knew it, he had already changed three decades by adding a redirect (1910s, 1920s, 1930s) and just left the rest like it was. Since I was already checking all the articles and adding more necessary categories (year of introduction, genre, nationality,...) I decided to just go ahead and finish what he started. I've made redirects to all the decades up until 1979 by now. I know it's rather tedious and your help is definitely appreciated, but I'm studying comics history at the moment so for me it's not such a huge problem to go by each article about a comic strip one by one. Several of the more obscure and/or foreign entries were so minimal that I'm actually glad I'm taking a look at all of them. Some, especially foreign titles and obscure comics, leave a lot to be desired and I've rewritten, added, linked and sourced more info to them if necessary. But feel free to add the bot to the remaining pages (1980s until the 2010s) so that all the articles are automatically moved to the proper page. The quicker it's done, the better.- User:Kjell Knudde September 6 2015 (2:47) (CET).

Yes, I see you had to rather take over to sort it out, but as a student of comics history I'm sure we can find more interesting work for you to do than the rather tedious work of creating new categories, editing all the articles to include the new ones and... it is making my head hurt. It wasn't that exciting creating them and adding them, but I have been doing it slowly over the years and it was necessary.
I'm not as fully engaged with Wikipedia business at the moment, but if you hang fire on new categories, I'll look into summoning a robot to run through the rest of them. Thanks for the work so far and I look forward to seeing your future contributions (which I hope will be more interesting for you ;) ). Emperor (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of the procedure here, so to try and get it sorted out asap, I've posted here. Emperor (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation issues[edit]

While I'm here I thought I should flag up edits like this. There was no comic that debuted in 1940 (that was the year the character was introduced, which is correctly categorised), Fictional American people is made redundant by American comics characters (as the latter is a child of it). I'd also suggest American comics characters is redundant as the page already has DC Comics superheroes and Archie Comics superheroes, which are child categories for American comics publishers. At the moment those two categories aren't children of American comics characters, but they should be - I see you have created that category and populated it, but I'd suggest you've done that in the wrong places - rather than, for example, Category:Batman characters being a child of it, Category:DC Comics characters should be as it makes more sense that way structurally. Category: American comics characters should be kept relatively clear, only including pages that don't have relevant American comics publishers categories already.

Hope that makes some sense - the general rule of thumb is to try and only categorise with the deepest nested categories (so Category:DC Comics superheroes not Category: Superheroes or Category: Comics characters, the first category being a child of the other two higher ones. So a lot of characters in there shouldn't be and I'll mark the category for diffusion. The higher level American comics publishers' character pages should be children of Category: American comics characters which would remove the need for Category:Batman characters - I'll pop a few of them in now, but I'll leave you to reverse the majority of your additions to that category.

Technically, I don't object to Category: American comics characters, but I think the reason some might is that there could be some confusion - the description makes it clear that this is for characters from American comics, not characters in comics who are American. However, it is a child of Category: Fictional American people which actually then demonstrates it is the latter. Unfortunately, Hägar the Horrible, Ka-Zar (comics), etc. aren't fictional American people and The Incredible Hulk (comic book) isn't a character it is a comic book, the character, obviously being Hulk (comics). The solution would be to remove Category: Fictional American people as it structurally changes the intent of the category - there has been a general reluctance to have categories for comics characters from specific countries, because with legacy characters and rolling continuities things aren't fixed like they might be in novels, for example, and we don't always get information about someone's nationality. I'd hate to referee the debate about Psylocke, although note the article is in Category:Fictional people from London...

Sorry about all that, but I do keep an eye on the comics categories to make sure it all makes sense and to ensure everything is properly categorised. I only happened across all this because I was editing Black Hood and noticed some problems [1] which I'll now revert following my points above (theoretically, the only one of those three that could be kept is Category: Fictional American people but a) has his nationality ever been stated in the comic and b) it is usually better to give it a more specific character if you can, as in the Psylocke case as Category: Fictional American people is itself flagged up for category diffusion, so we should try and avoid adding any characters to it).

I've not gone to the task of checking your other category additions, as there are a lot, but the sample of one I've seen suggests you might need to be a bit more careful with the categories you do add, as it may be some of them will need removing or refining and it is better to be as right as possible first time. Emperor (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I thought we'd done the dance over comics characters by origin and Category:American comics characters has been previously deleted, along with a slew of others, some of which I see you've re-created [2] (which I contributed to and was told a better formulation would be something like "Characters in American comics"). I'd personally be wary about putting too much effort into those as precedent will tend to mean they don't stand a long-term chance formulated as they are. If you wanted to continue, you'd be best to remove Category: Fictional American people from Category: American comics characters and propose a renaming to "Characters in American comics" (and the same with the other country variants you've started). I'll probably not be doing any edits connected to them myself because, until they are restructured and renamed, they are liable to get (speedily?) deleted. Emperor (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Long text. I'll try to keep my reply short. 1) Many of those superhero comics articles are extremely chaotic in their categorization. I often see different debut years pop up so it's possible I may have misread a few of them. When in doubt I always went for the oldest. 2) When I first started categorizing comics characters by nationality there was only a "Category:British comics characters" and "Category:Scottish comics characters". I have no idea why these pages were (still) there while other nationality pages have been deleted. But I saw that these specifically made clear that they were categorizing comics characters originating in Great Britain, not just those who have a British nationality in their respective comic strip universe. I used the same line of thought with the other nationalities (Belgian, German, French, Spanish,...). When a character both originated in the USA and is identified as being American I've added both "American comics characters" as well as "Fictional American people". When not, I've added another nationality, if possible. Take Alphonse and Gaston. I categorized them as "American comics characters", because they originated there, but in the comic they are supposed to be Frenchmen, so I added "Fictional French people". The Dragon Lady (Terry and the Pirates) is an American comics character, but she originated in Asia according to the comics universe she is created in, so I added "Fictional Asian people". For Native American characters I just used "Fictional Native American people" instead of "Fictional American people". Nero and Zero are two Roman soldiers in a British comic strip, so I used "Category:British comics characters" and "Fictional ancient Romans". From reading the deletion page I see that this confusion was already an issue back then, plus that many felt that there wouldn't be enough articles to fill the categories. The confusion is definitely there, but on every "Comics characters by nationality" page I've specifically stated at the top of the page: "Comics characters who originated in the USA", "...Spain", "...Italy",... to make the purpose of the category clear. As for the matter of not having enough articles: this may have been true in 2007, but nowadays there are far more articles about Italian, Spanish, British,... comics characters than I could even imagine. So there definitely should be some way of categorizing those by nationality one way or the other. Another namechange, like you suggested, might provide the solution. Maybe something among the line of "American born comics characters", "Italian born comics characters" or "Comics characters born in the USA", "Comics characters born in Italy" might be a good solution. Or "Fictional American people in comics", "Fictional Spanish people in comics",... maybe? Because the "Fictional American people" as it is is rather large. Making a subcategory for the comics characters would be a good idea.

By the way, a category I personally find redundant is "comics titles". Why do we need "Spanish comics titles", "American comics titles" and "British comics titles" if there are also categories for "American comics" and "American comic strips"? Most articles are already about a comic strip published under that very name, so there is no need for differentiating it as a "title". - User:Kjell Knudde , 6 September, 2015,17:32 (CET).

"Long text" Yes sorry about that, brevity is no houseguest of mine - one of the reasons I've been trying to keep a low profile on Wikipedia at the moment.
On your points:
1) If you are unsure about categorising an article, then it is best to ask on the talk page.
2) Categories like Category:British comics characters aren't still there, they were deleted years ago and have been recently recreated (that one was started in 2014), so it is unwise to rely on them existing as a sign that this is now OK - if there had been a discussion to overturn the precedent from that category deletion discussion, then they'd have all been recreated. I'd imagine that, once someone notices all these categories, they'll all be mass nominated for deletion. You can state clearly what the category is about, but the current structure doesn't match that (putting Category: American comics characters under Category: Fictional American people says that this is really about fictional Americans in comics). As the naming is ambiguous that is problematic, as it is the categorisation that defines the category. Adding a child of Category: Fictional American people and Category:Comics characters by medium and nationality says that they are fictional characters with an American nationality. What you need are:
On your other point: Category: American comics is the main category for the entire field of American comics - American comics creators, American comics publishers, American comics titles, etc. and should be largely empty except for those types of broad category and about half a dozen pages (like Free Comic Book Day, perhaps). I've removed a number of categories you and others have placed in there, as they shouldn't be there (and you've over-categorised those categories) so it makes a bit more sense. If you don't understand what a category is for, then ask, don't just jam other things in there as it'll need cleaning up. I helped thrash out the larger comics category structure, so can hopefully explain anything that is unclear. I'd rather sort it out than try and fix the issues piecemeal further down the line (as I haven't the time or energy to do that).
Oh and another tip - you added Category:Horror comics to this article [3] but it you check the previous version, it was already categorised [4]. Comics title templates, like {{Infobox comic book title}}, will generate genre and date categories automatically (and has been updated to generate the "XXXX comics debut" style of category). I've edited that article so that the infobox does a lot of the heavy lifting (leaving Fantasy comics as a hard coded category, because it would trigger compound categories that aren't relevant) [5]. If you are looking to add genre and year categories, then it'd be better to update the infobox rather than add them in directly.
And I've done it again. Sorry for the lengthy text but all this covers a lot of issues. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

- OK, when unsure about categories, I will ask. And I will refrain from adding “American comics characters” to categories like “DC comics characters”, “Marvel comics characters”, “EC comics characters”, because, indeed, you could just put those entire categories under “American comics characters”. I can see why nationalizing comics characters could be difficult, given the medium. On the other hand: you could easily say the same about literary characters. Or any fictional character in general. Why do we assume Sherlock Holmes is English? Because the stories portray him living in London. Why is Batman an American character, despite living in the fictional city of Gotham? Because we can all see it’s a typical American city. Nobody would assume Batman is Hungarian and he is marketed as an American character. The children from “Peanuts” don’t have a specific hometown at all, yet we all know they are American, based on their language and their surroundings. There is no real “proof” fictional characters have a certain nationality, other than their creator saying so. The rest is assumed by the readers based on the characters’ race, culture, name, clothing style or hometown. Or take countless fictional Frenchmen, Chinese, Native Americans, Russians, Mexixans,… Half of the time they are just walking stereotypes. An idea most people would have of those nationalities, despite not having any basis in reality today. The best thing about categorizing fictional characters by nationality is that you get a large scope of the way they are identified as being from that specific country. Some are nothing but a stereotype. Others are more three dimensional. I can get behind a renaming of the categories for “American comics characters”, though. Something like “Characters from American comics”, “Characters from Italian comics”, “Characters from British comics” is probably a bit more clear in its purpose. Summarizing characters from comics from that country, rather than assuming every comic book character from a specific country automatically has that very nationality. And like you said, it would help reducing the “Category:Comics characters” considerably. – User:Kjell Knudde 12:49, 6 september 2015 (CET).

August 2015[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

O.K., note taken. - User:Kjell Knudde 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Thank-you. Will you begin including an edit summary, then? Prhartcom (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I already do. It's just that I sometimes forget. - User:Kjell Knudde 10:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

Revert[edit]

I have reverted this change you made to Love is.... The intro states that Kim Grove created the strip in the 1960s, not the 1970s.

If you read further in the text the publication date is 1970. That's why it debuted in that year. If it appeared earlier we need a date that is less vague than "the 1960s". - User:Kjell Knudde, September 1, 2015.

September 2015[edit]

Information icon You have been warned before: Please be courteous to others and provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. I suggest keeping your edit summary in your editor's "copy" buffer, then "paste" it in as you make your edits. Please remember that others deserve to know what edit you have made without your forcing them to check the edit revision history. Notice that all other helpful editors use the edit summary; you are very much in the minority by defying this common courtesy.

Remember that the Edit summary content is useful in the following areas:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Fictional dandies?[edit]

Hi,

I saw you created and populated Category:Fictional dandies (came across it via Patrick Bateman). It looks like you're using WP:OR to apply that label (connecting what the Dandy article describes it as and finding people in fiction you can apply that to). This seems like something you would need WP:RS for, but I thought I'd ask before removing it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I used the list on the Dandy page. I wouldn't agree with all the examples listed there, but there are definitely some characters who fit that description. If the category has to go then so should that list of fictional dandies on the Dandy page. - User:Kjell Knudde 15:23, 5 October 2015 (CET).
I see. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but I suspect that list is largely based on WP:OR. Whether or not a character can be considered a dandy is not the sort of cut and dry thing like making a list of fictional police officers, fictional characters with a particular disease, etc. except insofar as the character is explicitly called a "dandy" (rather than described in the way one might describe a dandy) in the text. When they're not labeled as such in the work itself, it should require a reliable source which does. But, again, I don't actually have all that strong of an opinion on what to do with this :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Saginaw Krazy Kats) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Saginaw Krazy Kats, Kjell Knudde!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I'm userfying this.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Then you are good to go! User:Kjell Knudde/Saginaw Krazy Kats was deleted at 05:17, 12 October 2015 UTC. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Chick tract, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comic strips[edit]

Your recent use of a "comic strips" category has in some cases been mistaken. Gay Comix, Meatmen, Strangers in Paradise, and others are not comic strips, but periodicals – comic books – in their own right. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop changing categories of articles about things you are unfamiliar with. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to discuss this, or do I have to ask for intervention? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The "debut" categories are for ongoing series, not graphic novels. Saying that a graphic novel was published in year XXXX and that it "debuted" in XXXX is redundant and confusing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain my line of thought with the "comic strips" category. I originally assumed that the "LGBT-comics" category was the main category for topics involving "LGBT-comics" and that articles about specific series, books, novels and such should be subcategorized in the "LGBT-comic strips" section. As for the "graphic novels category": I'm sorry, I looked over it. - User:Knudde Kjell 3:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
"Comic strip" is simply not a correct term for them. A "strip" is a specic format: a short comic that's included in a newspaper or in a magazine with other material (or the web-based equivalent). Graphic novels are not strips. BD albums are not strips. American monthly comic books are not strips. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wiske.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Wiske.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


A little token of appreciation[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For writing and editing many articles in the cartoons domain. Your article on Eric de Noorman caught my eye! gidonb (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Categorising fables[edit]

Hi, Kjell Knudde, I notice you have been doing a lot of categorising lately, among which a fair number of fables figure. If you wanted source lists of fables to guide you, you'll find them at the end of articles on Aesop's Fables and La Fontaine's Fables.

I should like to advise, however, that you at least read the lead to the articles you categorise, if not the entire article. I have sometimes disagreed with your judgments on items on my watch list and have reversed them. I will give one example: The Young Man and the Swallow. This is virtually an illustrated proverb in which there is no interaction between man and bird. The bird functions purely as a bird and certainly does not speak. It cannot therefore be categorised as a fictional swallow since the whole point of the fable is that it acts like a real bird. The man draws a deduction from its appearance and later apostophises its dead body, which hardly qualifies them to be categorised as a literary duo. You might just as well enter into that category the proverbial Pot Calling the Kettle Black! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the appreciation and concern. I do read the articles to check if they fit the category. In fact, I was going through the fables and fairy tales to check for missing categories, but quit for a while because I first wanted to do some other ones. I will return to them shortly. Indeed, I have refrained from just adding every article with the words "X and (the) Y", precisely because in some cases it's not about a duo at all. I'll give a simple example: "War and Peace", "Crime and Punishment",... are more abstract concepts, so I will never list those as literary duos. In the example you gave, "The Young Man and the Swallow", I can understand your interpretation but I still feel they are a duo because the story is about two characters, whether they are real, anthropomorphic or metaphorical. Even with the "Pot and the Kettle" they are anthropomorphized objects who are able to talk, making them characters instead of just lifeless objects. I will agree it's fit for a discussion, though. - User:Kjell Knudde 14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we ought to discuss the parameters of what makes a duo, trio, etc. I have looked up duo in Merriam-Webster for US usuage and in Chambers for UK use. Both refer primarily to the musical meaning (also duet), and secondarily to "two persons etc associated in some way" (Chambers). As I have argued, really from the musical analogy that has primacy, there has to be active engagement. In an opera, there may be any number of persons on stage (there often are), but the duet is performed by interaction between just the two. Your argument that the title alone links the 'cast' together seems questionable, especially in the case of fables where titles often differ. To make a trio of "The miller, his son and the donkey" (as you have just done) would require the donkey (or ass in some versions) to be anthropomorphized and gifted with speech, and so play a more than passive part. I would prefer it, for the category to make sense, for the link to be made solely between the characters that play a principal part. I notice, for instance, that you (quite correctly) make a duo of The Tortoise and the Hare, even though a third animal (a fox, mole or whatever) plays a supplementary part as referee.

I have found you another list, by the way, at the end of Grimms' Fairy Tales. The downside to this is that many of the articles are no more than a stub mentioning that this is the title of a story from that publication. I'm wondering how you would categorize a story like The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids - a literary octet? Really the story consists of a duel between Mother Goat (who is not even mentioned in the title) and the Wolf. We really do need more rigour than simply categorizing by title alone. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain the entire idea behind "Literary duos". Until a few days ago we only had subcategories about "Fictional duos" for comics and animated cartoon characters, causing the list of "Fictional duos" to be very large. While I don't mind articles about comics and cartoon characters it does bother me when pop culture characters get more attention in articles than characters from less popular media such as literature. For instance, it amazes me some one-time characters from Star Wars, Batman or Disney films have their own character sheet articles, while so many characters from ancient tales are considered to be already "covered" in the article about the tale itself and thus not worthy of a separate article. In many cases the Wikipedia articles about fairy tales, fables, legends, folk tales and other oral tradition are very minimal in categorization, despite many being about animals or professions that we have separate categories for ("Fictional foxes", "Fictional birds", "Fictional kings", "Fictional farmers",...). Since these are often the most ancient examples of these narrative archetypes they too should be listed in the most appropriate categories. Of course, categorization is sometimes difficult. You could argue that the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is not a "real" wolf, because he is able to talk and cross-dress and would therefore fit more under the category "Anthropomorphic wolves", or something. And shouldn't the hunter be mentioned? He plays a minor, but vital part to the conclusion of the plot. Should the fairy tale be listed as a "Literary duo", because many people talk about "Little Red Riding Hood AND the wolf"? And isn't the article more about the story, rather than two separate characters? Is Dracula a "fictional bat"? Is a story about a hellhound about a "dog" or a "wolf"? You could really go on about this. In some cases the solution is easy. The Princess and the Pea, for instance, is more about a princess. The pea is just a macguffin in the story and not a character. Therefore I didn't categorize it under "Literary duos". A different example is a story called The Clever Little Tailor, which is about a tailor, so "Fictional tailors" fits as a category. However, in the same story a bear also plays a large part. Since this bear is not mentioned in the title and more or less a side character, albeit an important one, I used the category "Bears in popular culture", to indicate that this a story where bears play an important part, rather than "Fictional bears". I would do the same for "Hansel and Gretel", where a witch does play an important part, but she is not mentioned in the title, nor the focus of the story, nor the article, so the category "Witches in popular culture" fits better. Of course, in some cases you can't really make a clear decision. Many stories have other characters besides the ones mentioned in the title, though sometimes they are just additions. The Tortoise and the Hare is about a tortoise and a hare. Some children's stories depict other animals watching the race and one being a referee, but in the original tale no mention of other animals is made. It could just be about them two alone. With The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids the story is about mother goat, her seven goats and the wolf. Who plays a more important or bigger part is not really a deal here, because both the wolf, the mother and the little goats are vital for telling the story. I wouldn't categorize them as "fictional septets or octets" either, because we don't have a category for that topic and hardly enough characters in fiction that could be categorized as such. To get back at The miller, his son and the donkey: all the characters are indeed associated with each other. Whether the donkey is passive or not doesn't really matter. After all there are articles about characters who play no major active role in a story (damsel in distresses, kings who order a hero to do something for him but who stays home otherwise,...) or who are literally flat characters. Most characters in these folk tales are in fact flat characters, even the miller and his son of whom we know nothing, except that they subjugate themselves to the norm at this particular point of the story. Is the father really a miller? Is his child really his own son? Maybe the donkey could talk and just decided he wanted his owners to fail miserably, for the sake of the story's aesop. All of it is deliberately left vague, as you can expect from such a short story. In the end, what matters most for categorization is whether the characters in the title are separate beings that play an important role in the story. To me personally the donkey is equally important. You can't tell the tale without him. Yes, he could have been a different, more complex character, but then it would have been a completely different story too. Of course, others like you could interpret it in another way. That's the power of storytelling. :) - User:Kjell Knudde, November 8, 2015. 17:21 (CET).

OK, you've demonstrated that you know there's a problem with (let's call it) folk material. Now let's talk about rigour.

  1. Have you in fact drawn up guidelines for how these categories are to be defined? So far there's nothing to stop me or anyone else deciding to 'help' you with your task by categorising the wolf and kids fable as an octet, nonet or duo. WP runs on guidelines in order to avoid chaos and rubbish.
  2. You have to address the fact that the original versions of fables like The Boy Who Cried Wolf had no titles and go under a variety of them. Then in the case of The Lion's Share, the lion's hunting companions vary in type and number over a variety of versions.
  3. Just who is supposed to be helped by these categorizations? How easy is it going to be for (re)searchers to make use of the lists if there are no valid parameters and no-one partolling them?
  4. WP is an encyclopaedia open to all, agreed, but if a major initiative such as yours is going to be launched, then it should be according to agreed professional standards.

I'm happy to discuss the matter with you, or you might prefer to find someone with more expertise to advise. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. Categorizing serves one major purpose: bringing all articles about a similar topic or theme together in one group. The same goes for subcategorizing. If you do a study about the way birds are portrayed in fiction or just need an overview of all the articles about fictional birds then "Fictional birds" would come in handy. The subcategory "Fictional penguins", "Fictional owls", "Fictional parrots",... is even better, because it's more specific. Same goes for categorizing by genre, topic, author,... If you need examples of comics about World War Two, gothic horror novels or Brazilian folklore characters then categories for these topics are needed. Especially to avoid people creating articles that we already have. Categorization should also be justified within the article text itself and have enough examples. For instance: "Fictional narwhals" is not going to list many examples, while "Fictional sea mammals" would open more possibilities. There are probably famous groups of eight people in fiction to warrant "fictional octets", but I doubt whether there will be enough. That's why I wouldn't make such a category. In some cases it's difficult to count. Are The Three Musketeers a quartet, because D'Artagnan is actually one of them? Are The Marx Brothers a trio (Groucho, Harpo, Chico), a quartet (with Zeppo) or a quintet (originally there was Gummo, but he never made it from the stage to the films)?
  2. Many tales originally had no titles, that's true. However they all received a title when they were written down by folklorists. And even on this site, when deciding over a title, there are still redirects to point people to the correct page in case of different titles, spellings, and so on... Many articles about folk tales are sometimes about almost the same story, only with a few key differences based on the storyteller or country where it was told. In the end whether a tale is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" or "The Youngster Who Yelled Wolf" doesn't matter. The story is about a child and a wolf and they are mentioned in the title of the Wikipedia article, so "Child characters in literature" and "Fictional wolves" are the categories needed. I know The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids as "The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats", for instance. Same story, different name.
  3. Judging whether an article/category is needed is not my personal job. There are enough users worldwide who patrol articles and keep a close watch. If something is ripe for discussion then it will be nominated and discussed sooner or later. If I have something to say about it then I will come in. If not, then I mind my own business. In some cases I have the impression an article is just pandering to people within a certain niche without much impact on overall society. Do we, for instance, need articles about every Pokémon character, every Batman character, all main characters of a long-running TV soap? On the other hand I'm confident that these articles, IF well written and sourced, can be of interest to other people, therefore I don't mind them. All I try to do is be responsible for my own work. When in doubt about something I ask others for advice.
  4. This one speaks for itself. - User:Kjell Knudde (19:45) November 8, 2015 (CET).

And finally, 5. Let's respect English usage, as I discussed in the passage on dictionary meanings. The Young Man and the Swallow is all about the young man, his foolishness and false deductions. He and the swallow are not a duo in the dictionary definition. The most one could claim is that a fictional swallow is involved because of the fable's connection with the proverb discussed in the article. "The Miller and his Son" (not all versions even mention the donkey in the title) are a duo and the moral relates to their social behaviour, their responses to criticism. The donkey is not a necessary player because, as you imply when discussing another fable, any other mcguffin would have done.

I am making two points here. First, that it is not useful to count in elements of the story that play no active part; second, that you cannot treat the English language in the cavalier way you are suggesting, it only confuses the issue. My suggestion is that you stick to categorising individual elements of the story where it is useful and that you steer clear of dubious and controversial categories involving duos and trios that muddy the issue. Where I or other editors disagree over categories, it will be up to you to discuss the point on the talk page, not via reversion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have agreed with almost every change so far and have even added some, eg Fictional trees under The Fir and the Bramble and Fictional plants under The Gourd and the Palm-tree. However, I have noticed that you have missed categorising the occupation of Bird-catcher/Fowler, a country occupation since Classical times and persisting, so far as I remember, so far as 1840 in Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. I'm not suggesting you create a category just for that craft but one that takes in other country occupations. It makes sense if you're going to categorise all the fable and folklore entries. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I decided to finish all the work on the fables in one session. First I did the familiar ones (there are many about common animals, such as dogs, cats and lions), then went to the more challenging ones (out-of-date historical professions, less common animal species, plants and trees). Thanks for the appreciation and the additions. As much as I would like to categorize fictional fowlers/bird-catchers the profession doesn't even have its own page on the site. I could also only find three examples of fictional fowlers for now (The Bird-catcher and the Blackbird, The Fowler and the Snake and, of course, Papageno (who doesn't even have his own article)). Hardly enough to warrant a subcategory of its own. That's why I categorized them under "Fictional hunters". - User:Kjell Knudde 14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Gasoline Alley[edit]

FYI, Gasoline Alley (radio) and The Talk of Gasoline Alley are two separate programs. The Talk of Gasoline Alley is a modern radio program dating from about the 1970 or 80's to the present that discusses the history of the Indianapolis 500. It is hosted by Donald Davidson during the month of May. -Drdisque (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

O.K. thanks. - User:Kjell Knudde, 2:24 15 November 2015 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RoboCop Versus The Terminator (comics)[edit]

I have undone your addition of "Category:One-shot comics titles to this page, both because it is a non-existent category and because it would seem to be an inappropriate category if it did exist; this was a four-issue miniseries, not a one-shot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of comics creators may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:
  • *[[Serge Le Tendre]] - (''[[La Quête de l'oiseau du temps]]''
  • *[[Régis Loisel|Loisel, Régis]] - (''[[La Quête de l'oiseau du temps]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of comics creators may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:
  • *[[Nigel Parkinson|Parkinson, Nigel]] - (''[[Olaff the Madlander]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC) - Thanks, the same! - User:Kjell Knudde, 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC).

YPS[edit]

This is not true. Yps currently puplishing in Germany. the next magazin comes in January 2016: http://yps.de/ --Natsu Dragoneel (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

O.K., then I'll change it back again, regarded you can provide a source. - User:Kjell Knudde, 0:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Love your number categories[edit]

I hope we can also find a word for group of 11 or 13 to exist. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Would be nice, but I don't think there are enough examples of groups of 11 or 13 people in fiction. - User:Kjell Knudde 12:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

Cultural depictions[edit]

Hi, after closing your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_30, I followed this up with related proposals at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016 January 9 (and a few speedy proposals).

There are of course lots more "in popular culture" categories and pages that are not people-related. You might like to start at the top, Category:Topics in popular culture, and work down. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A useful tool to create nice looking refs from Google Books links[edit]

I noticed you added a number of items, along with references to List_of_anti-war_films.

In many cases, the references were the url to a Google Book link. I though you might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

http://reftag.appspot.com/

I used it as an example for the reference for Das Boot.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cultural depictions[edit]

Please be more restrained in what you categorise as a "Cultural depiction". The criteria for putting something in a category are even more stringent than for a "in popular culture" section, it has to be the kind of WP:DEFINING characteristic that you'd mention it in the first paragraph of the article, not a passing appearance in Bill & Ted. So it should be restricted to biopics about the person, that kind of thing - usually films will mention the person in their name. Please have a read of WP:DEFINING and WP:Overcategorization before adding any more such categories, I almost deleted the Amelia Earheart one until I found some suitable films to go in it. And to be honest, this kind of stuff is not the most urgent thing to do with your time - have a poke around WP:WikiProject Film or other Wikiprojects to see what work is needed, the film cleanup list is here (big file, may be easier to download it and view it as a spreadsheet).Le Deluge (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A cultural depiction is the appearance of a certain person in a work. The work should either be about him/her or have him appear as a central character to the plot. In Bill & Ted these historical characters are part of the plot of those episodes, thus it definitely counts as a cultural depiction. What I don't include are mere namedrops or references that otherwise have nothing to do with the plot or overall concept of the work. (Homer Simpsons mentioning Gerald Ford in a throwaway line: not useful. Homer meeting Gerald Ford in an episode: useful as a cultural depiction.) The categories and amount of works which feature said person ought to tell us something about his or her significance in folklore, popular culture or historical fiction. Amelia Earhart has enough biopics and appearances in time travel fiction to justify a 'cultural depiction' page of her own. Louis Blériot, on the other hand, has not. It's not that Blériot is less important than Earhart. It's just that he hasn't inspired as much pop culture depictions as her. Thanks for the suggestions of other things to do, but I've already contributed a lot to minimalistic film articles over the years. User:Kjell Knudde 19:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).
We're not debating whether something is a "cultural depiction", but a "cultural depiction worthy of being categorised" - which means it has to pass WP:DEFINING. Have a read of that and WP:Overcategorization - if you still feel that you have a case then perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to gain a consensus on where to draw the line.Le Deluge (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion and respect your politeness concerning pointing the matter out to me. In some cases, though, 'cultural depictions' categories are still being filled with articles at the moment, so it may be a bit premature to debate whether they are full enough and therefore relevant enough to be kept? If by then there are still 'Cultural depictions' categories about certain people that may warrant debate then I'll be grateful to join the discussion and even accept certain deletions if there aren't enough articles in a certain category (at this moment) to justify its existence on the site. I'd would also like to thank you for tracking down more articles about Amelia Earhart for her 'Cultural depictions' category. Feel free to do so too with other too minimalistic 'Cultural depictions' categories. Sincerly, and with all respect. User:Kjell Knudde 0:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).
This isn't about how full a particular category is. It's about not assigning a category based on a fleeting appearance in a film/cartoon. Have a read of WP:Overcategorization and WP:DEFINING, categories should be assigned to an article with restraint and not like confetti. It looks like we'll have to take this to WP:WikiProject Film.Le Deluge (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You've also made at least one apparently-erroneous addition. You added "Cultural depictions of Daniel Boone" to The Last of the Mohicans, even though he's mentioned nowhere within the article. Please be more careful. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, not to pile on but I undid your Cultural Depiction of George Washington edit at The Patriot since George Washington only appears briefly in the film, which follows Mel Gibson's character in the central plotline.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]


Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional characters who are able to fly[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional characters who are able to fly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs[edit]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blondin et Cirage, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages[edit]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blondin et Cirage, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fictional dandies has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Fictional dandies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Thank you for your recent additions/corrections to articles on WWI songs! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Songs about Argentina has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Songs about Argentina, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —IB [ Poke ] 06:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Songs about Jesus[edit]

Please define in the category article what the new category is to contain exactly, because "song" is a broad term and needs a definition, and "about Jesus" the same. What makes a song "about Jesus", compared to "related to Jesus"? How does the new category relate to other categories? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your addition "A list of all songs with lyrics about Jesus Christ ...", and can tell you that will be too many to be useful. Also: it's not a list, it's a category. If the article List of songs about Jesus existed, we would have a better understanding. Compare Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, where the scope is clearly defined by existing articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, for now it will do. As soon as the category overreaches 200 examples subcategories might become neccessary or an even more specific introduction. - User:Kjell Knudde, 15:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC).

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Kjell Knudde, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! MusikAnimal talk 10:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

GNs don't have "debuts"[edit]

I've been over this before. Graphic novels do not have "debut" years. Those categories are for things that begin in those years, not for things that were published in their entirety in that year. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sqwark![edit]

Hi Kjell Knudde,the Penguin Cabal thanks you for your recent edits at List of fictional penguinsFace-smile.svg Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Female characters in television has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Female characters in television, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — TAnthonyTalk 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Page blanking[edit]

Please do not blank pages, as you did to Darth Vader vs. Hitler, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was wondering whether a redirect would be misleading or not - if it contained a spelling mistake (like in 'Done with Boneparte' instead of 'Done with Bonaparte'), but now I know what to do next time I encounter a situation like this. :) - User:Kjell Knudde 1:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I saw your edit to the Les Pieds Nickeles page. Thanks. StellarDrift (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I just worked on the LouisForton page. Can you move to mainspace?StellarDrift (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Kjell Knudde. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

- Thanks, same season greetings to you and your loved ones too. User:Kjell Knudde 7:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

ho, ho, ho[edit]

Hi Kjell Knudde, Neddy wishes everybody a very merry Xmas (suggestions of direct ancestory with one of the eyewitnesses to the happy event have, so far, proved unfounded)Face-smile.svg Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

- Thanks, same season greetings to you and your loved ones too. User:Kjell Knudde 7:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Cultural depictions of Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Cultural depictions of Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

cultural depiction nonsense categories[edit]

[6] Video games like this have dozens of historical characters. That's a lot of categories to clog them with. I doubt anyone who plays these games would be curious to what other games would have that historical character in them. They can click a link to the actual person, and at the bottom of their page have a link to a list article listing where they have been featured at. That'd work out better. Dream Focus 19:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Songs about Libanon[edit]

Just for future reference, if you ever have another situation like Category:Songs about Libanon, where you make a spelling error or typo and then catch and correct it yourself minutes later, you don't actually have to list the error at WP:CFD for seven full days of discussion. There are obviously no serious grounds for anybody to oppose deleting it, so you can actually just tag such a thing with {{Db-author}} to put in the speedy deletion queue instead of having to list it for a full debate. That should make things a bit easier in the future. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information. I wasn't aware there was a quicker way. - User:Kjell Knudde 16:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Please join the discussion at the video game wikiproject about your categories[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Cultural_Categories Dream Focus 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice work![edit]

After sending you a couple of 'thanks' I popped in on your user page and 'wow!', nice work. Your category creations are first-rate and fill in many search areas for Wikipedia readers. So...another thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Appreciate the appreciation. :) - Kjell Knudde 18:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC).

Thanks[edit]

I just wrote Phiny Dick, and one of my two main sources turned out to be a page you wrote for the Lambiek Comiclopedia. I had seen your name and good work here many times, but had no idea you also contributed there. Congrats, and thanks for all the hard work! Fram (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank YOU! Phiny Dick was on my list of articles that ought to be created. You saved me a lot of time and to top it all off the Wikipedia article is so perfect that I've nothing to add to it. :) - User:Kjell Knudde 18:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Songs about streets and roads has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Songs about streets and roads, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Songs about bridges has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Songs about bridges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Songs about stars has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Songs about stars, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Richhoncho (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films adapted into video games has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Films adapted into video games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Various new minor-planet categories[edit]

As far as I see, you created the following new categories (on 9 and 10 July, in boldface):

Did you discuss these numerous new categories with any of the main-contributors such as Tom.Reding? There are more than 20,000 named minor planets, this potentially creates a huge backlog. Could you please explain your intentions? There are several issues here. Also, I'm currently doing a major revision on the minor-planet categories myself: is this just a coincidence? Rfassbind – talk 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

- My dear sir, this is indeed just a coincidence and I happen to work on my own initiative. I see a huge backlog of minor planets and I just want to categorize them in order to make some sense out of them. Because, indeed, the list of these minor planets will just keep growing and, as I understand, there have already been some excellent Wikipedia articles trying to list them in chronological order and with explanations to the meaning of these names (the Meanings of minor planet names pages). The only downside is that one still can't really find out at once what kind of people or characters had an asteroid named after them? Even the one page which tries to list them altogether still doesn't name all of them, which is understandable as this would make this one page extraordinarily long. To me categorisation categories seem to be the best solution. I've already traced all the minor planets named after fictional characters by now and grouped them in the appropriate categories. Since characters from various mythologies are categorized too I feel that biblical characters could warrant their own category too, which I created. As for the minor planets named after real-life people I'm considering categorizing them by profession (actors, mathematicians, musicians, writers,...) and by nationality (Switzerland, India, Argentine, Japan,...). Yes, it would be much work, but on the other hand I foresee that in the not-too-distant future categorisation will become necessary anyway, as the minor planets pages will just keep on growing in the thousands. And then at least there is some handy overview. - User:Kjell Knudde, 11 July 2018, 12:15. (CET)

── Thank you for your explanation. Here's a quick feedback:

  • As for your future plans to add subcategories to Category:Minor planets named for people (short "named for people"):
    • You need to discuss this (and get approval) at WT:AST
    • Note: we already had once a subcategory, Category:Asteroids named as an award, which was subsequently deleted. As a consequence, with the complete removal we also lost the parent categorization ("named for people", example). This means if you are creating new subcats, we run the risk that they will be completely de-categorized in case of deletion, which which would undermine all our previous work.
    • During my current (unrelated) category revision, I added the "named for people" category to hundreds of minor planets. So before creating an unsustainable amount of new sub-categories, the "named for people"-category first needs to be completely populated. I estimate that there are still a few thousand items missing (there are currently 12,457 minor planets in this cat; and counting).
    • Since there are so many items in "named for people", there is a certain risk that things will be abandoned before completion. So a broad support is mandatory.
  • As for your new categories you already created (above) and that are childs of parents Category:Minor planets named for fictional characters and/or Category:Minor planets named from literature.
    • I don' like the double classification of the last two subcats (fairy tale, literary characters). This is confusing. Tom.Reding any suggestions? Somehow the two parents (fictional characters, literature) should be merged into one parent only. Although these two categories are much smaller, we should find a solution the sooner the better.
    • Postion of new categories: all minor-planet categories I mentioned so far should be places directly above the umbrella Category:Named minor planets, as the order of the categories does matter. I know, that is something that is not yet fully done, but I've been working on that for years now.
  • As for the category Category:Minor planets named for biblical people:
    • I understand. It's neither "mythology" nor "fiction" (well, we could get into a completely different discussion now). But the problem I have is with the identification. As new minor planets are named on a monthly basis this just add to more research before finding the appropriate category (I know what I'm talking about–I've have created these newly named minor planets for the last couple of years all by myself). What do you think, Tom.Reding?

Kjell Knudde, I hope this was informative. I know that the minor-planet categories can be improved and I appreciate that, but there needs to be some kind of understanding and mutual agreement before implementing new, potentially disastrous categories (for the reasons described above). I've spent hundreds of hours with tens of thousands edits on the subjects; and Tom.Reding has certainly edited these categories 100,000 times. Rfassbind – talk 10:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rfassbind, thank you for the ping.
Kjell Knudde, have you had a read through WP:Overcategorization? I haven't had time to look through all of the additional categories, but it looks like this guideline will apply to at least some of them. In terms of categorizing minor planets named after real-life people, separating them by country is only reasonable down to a certain point (perhaps 10+ for a specific country, or more?). For this to be a serious undertaking, that lower limit should be mentioned in the parent category, so that excessive categorization will not be performed by future editors. This also introduces an additional level of maintenance, so if you decide to do this, please be as thorough and complete as possible during the initialization of these categories, so that others don't have to do an initial follow-up check. Future periodic checks will still be required though, so it's generally best to get WP:AST input/approval when making significant changes to the categorization scheme.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

── It would be an absolute disaster to create "by nationality" subcategories in Category:Minor planets named for people. If not for the four reasons I mentioned above, then because of the fact that we don't even know the nationality of thousands of these people honored by a minor planet. And for those we know, there is often ambiguity (which will trigger a run-away creation of additional categories) and or controversy. (e.g. Soviet). If there is still someone who thinks it's a neat idea to have these categories, I suggest that this person tries to find out the nationalities of the 302 most recently named minor planets.

@Kjell Knudde:

  • I have gone through every of the approx. 350 edits you made on the subject between 9 July 2018 (14:43) and 11 July 2018 (14:46), and changed the position and the sortkey of the categories you added. In addition, I removed/replaced a few redcats you produced. I also re-inserted the double newline you removed between the categories and the stub-templates. There were also some edits that caused a duplication of identical categories.
  • Going through your edits, I estimate that ​23 of all minor planets received two categories from you. For example, the large majority of named for opera characters also have a named from literature category, which sits on higher level on a different branch. This double categorization (from different but close branches) is confusing, especially since the "opera characters" category has a brother, named Category:Minor planets named for literary characters, which belongs to both "named from literature" and "named for fictional characters" branch. In short this is a mess. I don't blame you entirely for this situation, since you had build upon the categories you already encountered. So here's my proposal: I will come up with a new set of categories that belong to ONE-PARENT-ONLY and that do not sound similar (e.g. "from literature", "for literary characters"). I will post this new category-tree here for discussion and feedback, before implementing . Rfassbind – talk 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous musical terms has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Eponymous musical terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous clothing has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Eponymous clothing, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous food has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Eponymous food, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1986 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Loser (Beck song). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gloomy Sunday. Binksternet (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1935 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indonesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1997 in comics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tintin
Lambiek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gallery

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1974 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adrian Dingle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawkeye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Kjell Knudde. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2014 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marvel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

John Law (song) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John Law (song). Since you had some involvement with the John Law (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1984 in animation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yellow Submarine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2002 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skyroads (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1977 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry and the Pirates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Luxembourg[edit]

Hi. If I remember correctly you contributed in the past to nlwiki (Dutch). My apologies if I'm wrong.

(next in Dutch, my apologies, but I usually prefer that if I can) Als ik het me goed herinner, draag je ook bij aan Lambieks Comiclopedia. Mijn excuses indien dit niet (meer) zo is. Op nlwiki draag ik (als een van de deelnemers van de Nederlandstalige versie van Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics) vooral bij aan stripgerelateerde onderwerpen. Rond Kerstmis zijn er gewoonlijk 2 weken schrijfweken. Gewoonlijk is het thema een land. Dit jaar was het het thema Luxemburg. Over strips uit Luxemburg was er op nlwiki bijna niks (op een regel in het artikel "Luxemburg (land)" na). Gezien die schrijfweken leek me dat een gelegenheid om daar een beetje verandering in te brengen (niet dat er wrsl zoveel in Luxemburg is). Voor het schrijven van biografieën van stripauteurs gebruik ik meestal Lambieks Comiclopedia als een van de voornaamste bronnen (met bronvermelding dan). In de zeldzame gevallen dat ik dat niet doe, zet ik er dan minstens een externe link naar in het artikel. Tenslotte is de Comiclopedia een degelijke bron en als je puur kijkt naar het aantal biografieën van stripauteurs, dan vind je moeilijk een groter aantal op 1 site online. Zelfs Wikipedia op 1 taalversie overtreft dat geloof ik nergens. Echter heeft de Comiclopedia ook maar 2 Luxemburgse stripauteurs. Dus ging ik op zoek naar een alternatief. Dan vond ik het biografische woordenboek dictionnaire des auteurs Luxembourgeois. Dat staat volledig tweetalig (Frans en Duits) online. Het bevat Luxemburgse auteurs en ook stripauteurs zijn er in opgenomen. Via de zoekfunctie aldaar en een lijst op de Luxemburgse Wikipedia (lb:Comicszeechner zu Lëtzebuerg) heb ik uiteindelijk een aantal artikels geschreven. Het voorlopige resultaat kan je zien op nl:Categorie:Luxemburgs stripauteur. 1/2 die op Lambiek staat, heeft geen artikel omdat ik vind dat de anderen wat meer prioriteit hebben (en die is ook niet opgenomen in tegenstelling tot een tiental anderen in dat biografische woordenboek). Als ik dat biografisch woordenboek verder gebruik, schat ik dat ik aan 10-15 artikels kan geraken. Zo denk ik bijvoorbeeld onder andere nog aan Fern Weirich (heeft ook foto op Commons), Pierre Decock, Gast Zangerlé (hoge functie bij stripuitgeverij en stripscenarist, alleen hebben stripscenaristen zelden een lemma op Lambieks Comiclopedia), Lucien Czuga (stripscenarist, idem als vorige), Sabrina Kaufmann en misschien Claudio Sorgo. Allen hebben een lemma in dat biografische woordenboek. Nu ja, ik geef dit maar door mochten jullie inspiratie nodig hebben voor wat nieuwe lemma's op Lambieks Comiclopedia. Met dat mooie "The story of Lambiek" verschenen er namelijk een tijdje geen nieuwe lemma's meer en sindsdien is het tempo ook nog niet op het eerste zicht wat het daarvoor was. Nu ja, hoeft ook niet. Doe zo maar verder. Het is net als Wikipedia vrijwilligerswerk. Luxemburgse stripauteurs zijn ook wat ondervertegenwoordigd op Lambiek. Misschien is het de moeite waard om dat eens op te vullen met een degelijke bron.

You or I can answer in English if you prefer that. Even though I can understand English well, my English writing isn't always so flawless. So I rather communicate in Dutch if it's doable. That's why I do it like this. Kind regards.TheDragonhunter (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of eponyms (L–Z), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maverick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1975 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bob Gardiner
1978 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Martin Rosen
1979 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bruce Bickford
1995 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Thomas O'Malley
2012 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Frankenweenie

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

1966 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Queen of Hearts
1989 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 101 Dalmatians

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:W. C. Fields has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:W. C. Fields, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Please don't cite the IMDb on Wikipedia. This is user-generated and not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1940 in comics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Howard Sherman
1946 in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gossamer
Kingfish: A Story of Huey P. Long (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Richard Bradford

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of comics creators, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IPC, Eppo and Noddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2005 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Lampoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

John Tenniel[edit]

Thank you for adding categories. I do wonder a bit about adding surrealism to John Tenniel. If anything i would classify him as a romantic. Because of his association with the Nazarene School. Not to say that an artist can't be both, i just sense he is too early. Grotesque is not necessarily surreal imho. Fred (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lady Snowblood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Professional wrestling vs wrestling[edit]

Hey, thank you for creating Category:Wikipedia categories named after wrestlers, however please note that professional wrestling and wrestling are not the same and are not treated the same on Wikipedia. Wrestlers are added into Sport related categories, however professional wrestlers roll into Entertainment related categories. I have made these changes, but please keep this in mind for future edits. Thanks - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1991 in animation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babes in Toyland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)