User talk:Black Falcon/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Bruce Willis' Nationality and Heritage

Hi again! I need to talk to about some people's Nationality and Heritage. First of all should the Bruce Willis article say that he is German-born American actor because he was born in Germany and is of descent. And I'm also wondering if it's suitable to put him in the Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States since he did move here in 1957. Second, it says in the Mike Myers article that he is Canadian actor (of British parentage) but wouldn't it be to say that he English-Canadian? I mean, he does have 2 passport 2 both countries. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

On Bruce Willis: Probably no. While he was born in Germany, his father was an American soldier, so he may have acquired US citizenship automatically (see United States nationality law#Through birth abroad to one United States citizen). To write that he is a "German-born American" implies that he was born a German and only later became an American, which does not seem to be the case. For the same reason, Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States probably should not be added—at least not without a reliable source.

On Mike Myers (actor): Do you mean that he has both a Canadian and a British passport? If so, and if you can find a reliable source to support that, then it probably deserves to be mentioned in the article that he is a dual citizen. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Move

Thanks for this edit. I am so dense sometimes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to change the header

Black Falcon you forgot to change the header again in your table. :).Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I need to ask you for a few favors

Hi Black Falcon! Could you do me a few edits on wikipedia? First of all, would you mind putting the category Liane Cartman under the Category Category:Fictional_bisexuals? Second could you look at the summary of the book I wrote called More_than_weird? Is it too long to be under the stub category? Third, about Alexandra_Powers the xenu forum this has a phone number and I've called it and the people there have have confirmed Alexandra Powers is a member of Scientology along with Gavin Potter. Here's the phone number: 1800-683-6234. You can call it to use that forum as a reference or if not could you find a source on the web to support the statement:She is married to fellow Sea Org member Gavin Potter (a Canadian citizen) and both work at the Freewinds (FSSO) liaison office in Los Angeles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For Liane Cartman: The section about her in List of South Park families does not mention her sexuality other than to say that she is "promiscuous". It is possible to categorize the redirect Liane Cartman in Category:Fictional bisexuals, but I would avoid doing so without confirmation in a reliable source.

For More than Weird: No, it is not yet too long to be called a stub. Whether an article is a stub is not only a factor of the total length of the article, but also of what type of content it contains. Almost all of the content of More than Weird currently is plot summary.

For Alexandra Powers: A source can be used in an article only if it is published, and the forum is not a reliable source (please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). A verbal confirmation by phone (or even face-to-face) is not enough. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Black Falcon Would you mind finding or searching the web for a reliable source saying that She is married to fellow Sea Org member Gavin Potter (a Canadian citizen) and both work at the Freewinds (FSSO) liaison office in Los Angeles? I can't find any source for that. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched as well and could find nothing. The only source that I found which could be considered reliable was this one, but the source does not indicate whether they are married. Since neither of us was able to find confirmation in a reliable source for that statement, I have removed it from the article per the Verifiability policy. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Liane Cartman

I found a source that says that Liane Cartman had had sex with the entire town South Park. This source is this article [[1]]. If she had sex with half a town including women, she is bisexual. Is that a reliable source? Could you please redirect Liane Cartman in Category:Fictional bisexuals? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunekh2 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That source is a Wikia website, which is not a reliable source; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper): "[S]elf-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis added) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_27#Wikipedia_books

Following the horrible chaos of April 7, I've resubmitted things for discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite so chaotic, but I think your new nominations are useful in the sense that they introduce the new option of deleting categories for user books by topic and summarize the (tentative) consensus of the April 7 discussions. Thank you for notifying me, though; I will comment in more detail at the CfD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I used "chaotic" in the sense that the discussions lacked focus and we ended up getting bogged down in issues that were due to outdated software. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought initially that you meant "chaotic" in the sense that there were too many participants, but I understand now. Thanks for clarifying, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War title

I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While I do not really oppose your proposed title, I have a slight preference for the current title. I have explained my opinion at the discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A few things I need to discuss with you

Hi! Fist of all I need to discuss about the Holly Marie Combs article. It has no discussion of her early life. Could you use this aricle :http://www.tv.com/person/1532/summary.html to as a reference to add stuff in the Holly Marie Combs about her life? Also about Liane Cartman, in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartman%27s_Mom_Is_a_Dirty_Slut it says that Liane Cartman slept with Mayor McDaniels and Principal Victoria which are both Women. So Liane Cartman is bisexual. Please put her under that category. Also I would like to start a page about a little known actress named Ella Reid who only had one film credit in Caged Heat. Here is her IMDB page:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0717254/ Just to let you know she is African-American. Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For Holly Marie Combs: There have been a few discussions concerning the use of TV.com as a source (see here, here and here), and the consensus seems to be that content written by staff members (example) is reliable but content written by users is not. The biography of Holly Marie Combs is not credited to any staff member and appears to be user-written, so it does not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source.

For Liane Cartman: In general, having sex with someone of the same sex does not necessarily make one gay or bisexual, which are defined by a "physical or romantic attraction". In other words, a homosexual act does not always indicate a homosexual orientation. For fictional characters in particular, who have no identity other than what their creators and writers give them, we should not apply labels of identity that are unsupported by statements from the creators or writers. Note that the category description for Category:Fictional bisexuals indicates that "characters must be explicitly defined as bisexual in order to qualify" for inclusion in the category. For a similar example, see Buffy Summers and the discussions here and here.

For Ella Reid: If she was little-known and had only one film credit, then it is likely that she does not meet the notability standards for people. However, if she has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and you can find such sources, then I would be happy to help you with the article.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics by continent

Re the finalised and archived discussion on Category:Politics by continent, does this include the deletion of Category:African politics and Category:European politics, not just their being a subcategory of Category:Politics of Africa and Category:Politics of Europe respectively. I had intended that whichever option was adopted, only one of the categories should be retained. And as the changing of 50 to 100 pages and categories is required for each change (Europe and Africa), can this be done automatically or does each page/subcategory change still need to be done individually and manually? If so I would certainly do some. Hugo999 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I'd forgotten about them; thank you for reminding me. :)

Yes, Category:African politics and Category:European politics can be processed automatically without further discussion using the speedy renaming and merging process. I have tagged and listed the categories here, and they will be processed in approximately 48 hours. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

More to Discuss

Hi! I was noticing on this article called Quincy_Jones_III that there were no categories or references or external links. Could you please add some? Second on this article called Isaac_Hayes_III that need to be cleaned up please. Third, could you look for a reliable source or reference to use for the Holly Marie Combs article to talk about her early life? Also on the user page User:Neptunekh2 I would like an Wikipedia:Userbox saying I'm English-Canadian. By the way, what is your nationality and your heritage? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Quincy Jones III: I reverted the article to a previous version, in the process undoing several edits that vandalized the article or introduced content that is unsourced, promotional, and probably copyrighted. The article now appears in multiple categories.

Isaac Hayes III: The article does need cleanup in general, but is there something in particular that you wanted me to do? I have done some cleanup (see diff). You can make general requests for improvement via cleanup tags (which already are on the article), on the talk page, or from WikiProject Biography. You are, of course, also free to improve the article yourself.

Holly Marie Combs: I encourage you to search for reliable sources yourself. The article is not one I plan to generally work on at this time, though I would be happy to help you with specific issues.

User:Neptunekh2: I was unable to find a userbox for English-Canadian, but you already have two on your user page indicating that you are Canadian and of English descent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildstorm Comics

Yep, missed one. Listed now. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Several Thing I need to discuss with you

Thank you for your edits. 1. For Holly Marie Combs early life; could this site be used a source:http://www.hollymcombs.com/hollyinformation_frames.html 2. There is an article I created called Sierra_Leone_clothing with no sources or external links; could this be used as a source:http://www.sl.undp.org/sloverview.htm? 3. In the of year 2537 I would like included from the novel More_than_Weird by Martyn_Godfrey a Gynoid named Susie travel from the year 2537 to the year 1987 to Dawson Creek to a human teenager to take the future to put in a human zoo. 4. Would you mind editing More_than_Weird? 5. For Ella Reid; I found two sources: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0717254/ http://www2.hsp.org/collections/Balch%20manuscript_guide/html/ella_reid_public_library.html Can you start an article about her? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Holly Marie Combs: The website appears to be self-published, so I do not think that it would be an acceptable source, especially for an article about a living person. See:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

–Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper)

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

–Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources

Sierra Leone clothing: Yes, definitely. The source is a website of the United Nations Development Programme, and is reliable.

2537 is a redirect to 26th century, and 26th century#Science fiction set in the 26th century seems like an appropriate place to add that information.

More than Weird: Is there a particular issue you wanted me to address? I have edited the article before, but it was mainly copyediting, categorization, and formatting.

Ella Reid: IMDb is not reliable source for anything other than filmographies, and the other source does not offer significant or non-trivial coverage of the subject. Unfortunately, the two sources together do not provide much usable information to write a biography. Also, are you sure that the two sources are about the same person—the IMDb listing is about an actress who appeared in a sexploitation film, whereas the second source is about a "church and community leader"?

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Could you please improve the More Than Weird article so its not too long or overly detailed? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will try, though I must note that most of the article consists of a summary of the plot and the book is not one that I have read (and, therefore, I am not directly familiar with its plot). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit, but I'm afraid there's not much I can do regarding the level of detail of the plot summary. I have not read the book and so can't reliably assess the relative significance of different bits of information (i.e., of different portions of the plot). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Martyn Godfrey

Hey Black Falcon, I'm having trouble adding a link in the Martyn Godfrey article. This is the link: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/g/martyn-godfrey/. COuld you please add it in? Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to add it as an in-text citation of a specific statement or claim or as a general external link (see Martyn Godfrey#External links)? Also, what problem are you having—perhaps I could you with it...? Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Restricted images

I just closed the discussion since it really isn't the venue to discuss it, and I agree with your rationale for opposing and a speedy close. A bit of IAR, but I don't think that having the same topic discussed on 30 pages isn't going to help anything.--Terrillja _talk 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the images appear to be on Commons, so if they are deleted there then the files on Wikipedia will become empty except for a transclusion of {{Restricted use}}. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Porn

I respect your declaration at Files for Deletion. But then please undelete all deleted images, such as File:Sex intercourse.jpg until a policy decision is made. Actually, that image is far, far better and more educational some some of the lousy and sometimes porno line drawings. SOme of the pictures are nasty but the named filed above is good.

Please save it or put it on a subpage for me and I will research it and then notify you within a day to re-delete. Thank you. Assorg (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a sysop on the English Wikipedia, but not on Wikimedia Commons; since that image was saved on Wikimedia Commons (commons:File:Sex intercourse.jpg) and not here, I am unable to undelete (or even view) it. I think your best bet is to wait for a response from User:TheDJ (I see that you have already contacted him) or to wait until some measure of clarity returns to Wikimedia Commons. You can also participate in the active undeletion request for the image. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Link

Hi, I took the liberty of changing this link, assuming that was what where you intended it to point. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops... Thank you. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A few things to Discuss

1. Black Falcon, I would like you to add the link http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/g/martyn-godfrey in the Martyn Godfrey article just as you said as an in-text citation of a specific statement. 2. I think there should be an article to discuss the father in law of Bob Marley who is also the father of Rita Marley. He taught Bob the guitar and his name was Leroy Anderson. I found 4 sources: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-4378182.html http://www.wargs.com/other/marley.html http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19970128&id=7ZwsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CP0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5269,5133701 http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/dixon.html Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For Martyn Godfrey: done. For the future, you can add sources to an article by surrounding the citation with <ref> tags (e.g., <ref>CITATION TEXT</ref>); see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details.

For Leroy Anderson: There does not appear to be enough information about him (at least in online sources) to justify a stand-alone article. This source and this one only mention Leroy Anderson in passing (i.e., they do not provide the significant coverage that is a requirement for notability) and this one is a copy of the obituary printed here. I did a search for "Leroy Anderson" in the Google News Archives, and there does not seem to be significant coverage of him other than the obituary. There are a few news articles that mention him in passing, but they all say essentially the same thing: that he was Rita Marley's father and he taught guitar to Bob Marley. The first fact is already mentioned in the article Rita Marley and I have proposed (see Talk:Bob Marley#Leroy Anderson) that the second fact be added to the article Bob Marley. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cydebot deletion summary issues

I've made some changes to Cydebot that should address the deletion summary issue (specifically, the lack of a correct link to the per-day discussion page in some instances). Please keep your eyes peeled for any remaining issues. More information is here. --Cyde Weys 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Cyde#Cydebot deletion summary (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging

Hi-there are 2 articles about the same man-Paschal Tosi/Pascal Tosi that need to be merged. He was a Roman Catholic priest who was a Jesuit, missionary in Alaska. He was the first Prefect Apostolic of Alaska. I started the Paschal Tosi article not realizing the Pascal Tosi article existed. I support the merge and would you please help with this? Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but can you please tell me (so I'll know which article to merge) which spelling is more common: Pascal or Paschal? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The different references uses Pascal-so that would be the spelling to be use-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Virtually all of the content in Paschal Tosi was already present in Pascal Tosi (though the former article was more succinct), so I mainly merged the sources. By the way, there are several discrepancies in the dates given by [2] and [3], including: Tosi's age at death (60 vs. 51) and when Alaska became a Prefecture Apostolic (27 July 1894 vs. 17 July 1894). Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving some articles

Some articles need to be improved. Would you mind taking at look at these 3 articles: Atlin,_British_Columbia Martine Beswick and Sierra_Leone_clothing? I know you are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa so maybe you can help with Sierra_Leone_clothing. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done some (mostly minor) cleanup to the first two articles, and for now I redirected Sierra Leone clothing to Clothing in Africa. With this as the only source so far (and most of the article's content is not supported by that source), a separate article is probably premature.

If you notice a problem with an article, I encourage you to be bold in trying to fix it yourself. You can also contact interested WikiProjects for assistance with particular articles (I work on Africa-related articles, but clothing is not within my area of expertise or interest). Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Alaotra Grebe

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting MFD

Not sure if you remember our discussion from the beginning of this year, but I think there is now ample evidence to revisit this MfD. Zero "attempt to improve" (in fact, zero edits at all) indicates it's an attempt to indefinitely archived deleted material. Thoughts? Thanks in advance! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Tothwolf to clarify how and whether he intends to use the draft, and to consider saving it off-wiki if he does not intend or is not able to work on it in the near future. The MfD was four months ago, so you can of course nominate the page again, but I think it would be good to wait for Tothwolf's response. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf replied on his talk page, and provided a list of works which cite Bash.org on the talk page of the draft. I encourage you to review the list and, if you believe that the draft cannot or will not be improved to address the original reasons for deletion, please feel free to nominate it again. Four months is enough time after a no consensus MfD to warrant reevaluating a userfied draft of previously deleted content. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

Hello Black Falcon, you recently (and by recently, I mean the discussion died about a month ago) took part of this discussion regarding the categories of Wikipedia books, which I have now just closed. Because of the complexity of the nomination and the categories themselves, I decided to contact the substantial contributors of the discussion to review the outcome of the discussion. I have not listed these categories at WP:CFDW to be processed yet, just to on the safe side and make sure I've come to the right conclusion. After reviewing the closure, please comment here and please let me know if I my closure hit the nail on the head, or trout me if I missed anything or came to the wrong conclusion. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 08:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Seventh Coin

Hi Black Falcon! I tried doing some references on a page called The Seventh Coin but they won't show up. Would you mind Cleaning it up? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Since the original citation led to a "Sorry, the article you requested is no longer available." message, I replaced it. The reason that the reference was not showing up was because you forgot to close the <ref> tag with </ref>: in other words, a reference must take the form

<ref>TEXT OF THE CITATION, INCLUDING TITLE, URL, ETC.</ref>

Akerans closed it in this edit. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the pointers in CfD on C2.A and C2.C. They makes more sense now you have put them in context --Jubilee♫clipman 22:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been of help. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hey,

User:CrimsonBot is cleared to do your task that you requested. I have started the removal, and should be finished in just a couple hours... As far as adding the uncategorized category to books without a category, I believe Josh Parris bot will do it, if not contact me, and I will file a BRFA...I already have the code. CrimsonBlue (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've done both tasks, so thank you! The category tree will be much easier to work with now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! CrimsonBlue (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Talk pages is now open for business!

You are receiving this message because you indicated support for this project or commented on its proposal.

If you are interested in being part of the Talk Page Cleanup Crew, then go stick your name on the list! Any help, thought, comment, advice, or suggestion you can give is welcome.
Note: Some things are still under construction.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added myself and will have a look at the project page in a few moments. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for all your help on the project – it's much appreciated.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tnanks to comment for "Why delete articles?"

Thanks to comments for Village pump (policy)"Why delete articles?". I think so many articles was burned,I sad..Your judgement is true. I been Never give up.Thanks!--基 建吉(MOTOI Kenkichi) (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Noynoy Aquino

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Double Comfort Safari Club

Hi Black Falcon would you mind cleaning up a page I created called the The Double Comfort Safari Club? It's a novel by Alexander McCall Smith and I have 1 reference for it: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/alexander-mccall-smith/double-comfort-safari-club.htm. Could you please clean it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunekh2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Neptunekh2#Speedy deletion nomination of The Double Comfort Safari Club. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Futsal in Indonesia

Hi, Black Falcon. I moved the competitions category of futsal (Category:Futsal competitions in Indonesia) to the Category:Futsal in Indonesia, but i leaved the only page in it (Indonesian Futsal League) in Category:Sports leagues in Indonesia which is a subcategory of Category:Sports competitions in Indonesia. I was trying to rearrange the taxonomy of Indonesian sports according to most countries' categorization models, such as Category:Sports in the United States. I have also made some major changes to overall taxonomy tree of Category:Sport in Indonesia and Category:Indonesian music. You may want to see it trough the Special:CategoryTree and possibly help me to improve or correct it. If you think that the Category:Futsal competitions in Indonesia should also be in Category:Sports competitions in Indonesia, maybe you are right. Im sorry i missed that. On the other hand, futsal is clearly different from football (soccer). Thank you for your cooperation. -- Yandri (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Yandri#Futsal in Indonesia (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My references on The Seventh Coin page

Hi Black Falcon. Would you mind cleaning my references on The Seventh Coin page? Could you help to see which references should go under production and which references should under Reception? I have the references of production and Reception mixed up thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Avont Jones

I was wondering if you could help me with a bio for male model rhys ashall aka Avont jones. i have included links im not very good at this sort of thing. Thanks

• http://www.chillirepresents.co.uk/model.php?model=290&cat=0_3_11
• http://www.talktothepress.co.uk/sell-story-today-real-life-story.htm MORE Magazine
• http://www.flmboynt.com/category/boys/
• http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/elections-candidates/37913-971-ukip-local-election-candidates-full-details.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesbury_Vale_Council_election,_2007
• http://www.provokemodels.com/show-model.php?ModelID=1458
• http://www.visionmodels.co.uk/boys.html
• http://www.avontjones.com

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpashall (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would perhaps consider helping you with the article if you could demonstrate that he meets the minimum requirements indicated in the notability guideline for people. The links you provided do not demonstrate that he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". All of the links that you provided offer no or only minimal coverage of the subject, or fail one or more of the requirements for reliability or independence.

However, if you are affiliated with Mr. Ashall (as your username suggests), then I would recommend that you avoid editing on this topic. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File-Class close

I closed this as a rename. Now, since you volunteered, I leave it to you to deal with all the consequences, including posting it on Working or wherever it has to go. Notify me if you need any help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the subcategories have moved, but Template:Cat class looks like it's holding things up. In the subcategories, "topic" needs to change to "File". Not sure how to proceed from here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mike Selinker#Re: File-Class close (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk)

Please see Wikipedia:Rename of Image-class to File-class when you return to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nigerian LGBT-related films

Hi Black falcon! I found a movie called Rag Tag (film) and it should go under the category Nigerian LGBT-related films. Nigerian LGBT-related films is not an existing category. Can you make it so that it is? Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that PrimeHunter already created it.

By the way, you can create a category just like you would create any other page. Just remember to make sure that it is necessary and useful (see Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created) and is placed within appropriate parent categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PEOPLECARE - HEALTH INSURANCE

Hi,

I would like to create a page on Peoplecare Health Insurance - following your removal of a simular page last year.

Previously, we did not understand the criteria required for having a page on Wikipedia, but would now like to rectify the situation, creating a valid and notable page for this not for profit health insurance organisation. I understand that the page should not in any way promote the organsiation, I just feel this page would enlighten viewers on the organisation, its history and what it is about.

Many Thanks, Sarah.

Sejwiki (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

You are welcome to create the article as long as it is not promotional and demonstrates the organization's notability (for guidelines, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). However, if you are closely affiliated with the organization, I urge you to review the guideline concerning potential conflicts of interest before proceeding.

You may wish to consider the option of creating a draft of the article in your userspace (e.g., User:Sejwiki/Peoplecare) before moving it to the article namespace; this will allow you more time to develop the article before it comes to the attention of other editors.

Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 24#Category:Jewish agnostics

Hey black, I've taken an interest in the CfD you started. I find it difficult to understand how "Jewish Agnostic"/"Jewish Atheist" isn't an oxymoron. Did you learn anything from your previous attempt to get this deleted? NickCT (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick! I did not actually nominate the category for deletion, but instead was the one who closed that particular discussion as "do not rename".

But, to answer your question, the reasoning for the Jewish atheists and Jewish agnostics categories is that "Jewish" denotes not only a religious affiliation but also an ethnic one; see Who is a Jew? and Secular Jewish culture. Thus, a person may be Jewish by descent (ethnicity) but not by belief (religion). I hope that helps. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Black Falcon, thanks for the input. I sorta struggled w/ the question of what "Jewish" means. I've concluded that it is (as you say) it is an ethnoreligious term, with an emphasis on the "ethno". In other words, the primary definition of "Jewish" is an ethnic one. I think it's sorta important to acknowledge that b/c, 1) It means that "Jewish Atheist" isn't an oxymoron, and 2) It means that we can categorize a number of Biographies can be categorized "Jewish" without violating WP:BLPCAT.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic. Thanks for getting back to me. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been of help (and sorry for the late reply, I was on wikibreak until yesterday). Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk)

Could you please clean up 2 articles on Wikipedia

Two articles I've started

Hi, could you please clean up and fix 2 articles I've started: 1. A lGBT centre in Vancouver Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmunity. 2. A autistic group in Gibsons Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturally_Autistic Thanks Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that both articles were speedily deleted because they did not indicate the significance of their topics. You can recreate the articles as long as you take steps to address that problem, and you can avoid deletion of your articles by following these steps:

1. Before creating the article, make sure that the topic of the article is notable; see Wikipedia:Notability.
2. While creating the article, add reliable sources which verify the content of the article; see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
3. Properly attribute the sources from which you collected information; see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
4. Do not copy-paste significant blocks of copyrighted text from other sources; see Wikipedia:Non-free content.

If you do not want to do all four of these things at once, you can write a draft of the article in your userspace (e.g., User:Neptunekh2/Sandbox) and work on the article there until you are ready to move it to the main article namespace. For more information, see the lists of what you may and may not have in your user pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers photos

A photo of Alexandra Powers is needed on her wikipedia page. Would any of this pictures be acceptable?: http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorCredit.aspx?ActorID=14027 http://www.tvspielfilm.de/stars/star/alexandra-powers,1571496,ApplicationGallery.html?page=5 http://www.flixster.com/actor/alexandra-powers Please let me know if any of these photos are acceptable for her wikipedia page. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The non-free content use policy generally does not permit us to use non-images for the sole purpose of identifying a living person. The first and third links lead to photos which appear to be screenshots and, thus, almost certainly are not free. The second link leads to five photos, but they too appear to be non-free: three are screenshots and two look like promotional photos. You can try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you want to double-check or find any other images. In the meantime, the article's talk page already has a tag requesting a free photo of her. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi : )

The title says it all : ) - jc37 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you're back too! :D

What's new? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

lol nod, have been for a little bit (finally)

And atm, looks like I broke (or at least didn't seem to update) a project template.

Would you be willing to take a look? - jc37 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can try. {{WikiProject Comics}}, right? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See also Template:WikiProject Superman, and talk:Superman and talk:Clark Kent.

At this point, I'm not sure what I did wrong, it "looks" like it should work, but I'm hesitant to keep dabbling "live" if I can help it : ) - jc37 03:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the code that you added, but I think I have it figured out. The Superman work group is the 11th taskforce supported by the {{WikiProject Comics}} project banner, but the template {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} (the main template allowing taskforces to be specified) supports a maximum of ten taskforces only. There is a work-around, but I'll need a few minutes to figure out the best way to implement it... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, ouch.

I wonder why it's limited to ten? - jc37 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see it.

So maybe just duplicate the sections twice more and change the 10 to 12? : )

Or will that break some other layer? - jc37 03:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nod Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested. Though I suppose it could be updated too...

Ok, so anyway, I'm going to stop causing that orange bar to appear so that you can focus on what you're doing : ) - jc37 03:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, I think. I added another transclusion of the template, which allowed me to start again from 1 (i.e., I changed the 11 to 1). I also could have used the functionality built in {{WPBannerMeta}}, which can support up to 5 taskforces without any need for an additional use of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}}, but I didn't want to take the risk of breaking the template by applying the more complex fix.

Good catch on {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested}}! That too supports only 10 taskforces, so I added another transclusion of it too. I honestly don't know why they're limited to ten ... maybe it's a server load or efficiency issue, or maybe whoever wrote it didn't think any project would have more than 10 taskforces. :)

Anyway, it should work now. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a null edit on Talk:Clark Kent and it seems to have worked. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(de-dent) great, and thank you.

Maybe later I'll ask happy melon about it. He usually untangles those kinds of questions (which was where I was headed, when I noticed you were around : )

Thanks again : ) - jc37 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. :)

Happy-melon definitely could figure it out, though he's not been around much lately. I'm looking at the template right now to see if I can get the code just right (and, for that matter, to check whether using the built-in functionality of {{WPBannerMeta}} would, in fact, simplify the template's code). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I finished, and either there isn't a good way to do it with {{WikiProject Comics}} or it's beyond my current level of skill ... probably the latter. :)

The problem I encountered has to do with {{WikiProject Comics}}'s use of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/collapsed}} to display task forces in a separate collapsed section as opposed to just below the importance rating. For a visual example, compare the way the "DC Comics work group" link appears at Talk:Vathlo Island (click the "show/hide" link) with the way the "WikiProject Swaziland" link is displayed at Talk:Motjane).

I figured out how to use the functionality built-in to {{WPBannerMeta}} to list up to five taskforces, but not how to ensure at the same time that those five taskforces will be hidden. This is the best working version I could arrive at, but you can see that only 6 taskforces are hidden and the other 5 are unhidden.

Anyway, if Happy-melon does take a look at it, hopefully these details will save some time for him. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked User:Xeno about it as well. He suggests I ask at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, so that's my next port of call. - jc37 22:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the talk page archives. Found Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_2#Custom_mask_and_hooks, which refers to Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces. Maybe User:Msgj may know more? - jc37 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He or User:TheDJ may be able to offer additional insight. I don't know whether either one has worked specifically with {{WPBannerMeta}}, but they both tend to be very well-versed in technical and coding issues. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Notices

As I have in the past, I'd like to (officially?) ask that if there is something you see, some discussion (or whatever) that you think I might be interested in, I would not consider it canvassing if you would please notify me. (You always seem to be more than one step ahead of me lol.) This includes, but is not restricted to: Anything regarding policy, any XfD discussion, any dispute discussion (RfC, Arbcom, etc.), any topic related to any of my userboxes, any WikiProject-related, etc.

And of course, thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. And, I'd like to ask the same of you... :)

One thing that comes to mind at the moment is this recent change to the guidance on relisting discussions. You may have noticed it already, but ... well, it could have implications for the perpetually-backlogged CFD. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Closer options. - jc37 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a comment at the policy talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know when your initial draft is on wiki. - jc37 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should be ready to post a working draft in about two hours or so. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Deletion process/Draft. Please also see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And here's one that you may be interested in. - jc37 23:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a detailed RfC, and made somewhat surreal by the most recent developments. It did reignite my interest in fiction-related discussions, though it's been quite a while since I've closely followed discussions on fiction-related guidelines and proposals... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryder Cup

Thanks. My bad. --Stephen 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Three things I need to discuss

1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver becuase Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On Britney Stevens. No, not necessarily (although they are sisters, they may not be blood relatives or may have a different father or mother...). Categorization should be based on reliable sources; for living people, especially, "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources".

I will research Qmunity and Naturally Autistic tomorrow to try to find some sources and determine whether the organizations are notable. By the way, regarding these two organizations ... please see my reply to your previous comment in the section 'Could you please clean up 2 articles on Wikipedia'.

Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and created an article about Qmunity. I could not find sufficient coverage in reliable sources about Naturally Autistic to be confident that it is, in fact, notable. If you can find such sources, I would be happy to help you to write the article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Shameless canvassing (or really, not - canvassing, that is, shameless on the other hand... - Is this one of the longer headers you've had? I wonder... Oh well, best get to the body of this thing and maybe turn off Monty Python, it may be having an effect - No it's not! - Well maybe - It's not. It is, look at the length of this already. What does length have to do with anything? Oh go eat your hat... And now for something completely different...)

VegaDark : ) - jc37 07:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. As I'm typing this, there is a red border around the edit summary box and a bolded warning telling me: Your edit summary is too long. Do you know the meaning of the word "summary"? Seriously, what the hell?!? .... I paraphrase. ;-)

It would be so cool if the length of this header broke MiszaBot. :-D -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

: )

- jc37 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Languages of Lesotho

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

I've added a comment to your "languages of Swaziland" nomination. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will reply at the nomination page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I ticked it. See there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Languages of Swaziland

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Qmunity

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of populated places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with the service award templates?

What is the deal with your edits to the service award templates? I am just trying to figure out what is going on, it's a little confusing because it involves template code and so forth.

Taking Template:Veteran Editor III as an example, you deleted something called the cat handler... this appears to put users in the the category Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 08, which continues to exist - you made some edit to it, but didn't delete it or nominate it for deletion.

In your edit summary you referred to a defunct category Category:Editors with service awards - is this related to [[:Category:Wikipedian Service Award Level 08], and if so, how? Your edit summary also made a reference to CSD G4, but no pages were deleted (that I know of) -- is CSD G4 used to delete sections of code? I thought it was just for deleting whole pages. What is the intended result of your edit? Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Category talk:Lists of Wikipedians by Service Awards‎ for a detailed explanation (I apologize for not thinking to link to that page in my edit summaries). Basically, you're correct that the categories themselves (and not the templates or their code) fall under CSD G4. However, since the categories are userbox-populated, the only way to empty (and then delete) them is to edit the code of the userboxes.

The categories are gradually depopulating as the job queue moves along, but it will be another day or so before they are completely empty. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I replied at Category talk:Lists of Wikipedians by Service Awards‎. Herostratus (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As per request

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

As per request: [4] and User:Johnbod's response. The discussion's WP:TL;DR, so I'm afraid the trout was inevitable. I support the idea, but like many of the other suggestions, I doubt it'll get much consensus. Here's to hoping though. :) --hkr Laozi speak 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was expecting it. :)

I am glad, however, to see that the idea was raised and is being considered. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PROD for MFD

I commented there. (I really don't like the idea.) But I wanted to ask: How about looking at this with a more direct approach and specifically identifying a few certain types of pages that are wanted to be removed?

For example, I wouldn't oppose the ability of admins to speedily delete userpage-hosted articles, as long as it was understood that they could be restored upon user request.

And for that matter, I might not object to prod being used for "just" this example, since it would still be being used for articles. And again, with the limitation that the page could be restored upon user request (considering it a contested prod at that point.)

But I'm wholly against prod being free to use in userspace. I remember the userbox wars (for example), and other things that I would guess that you probably recall as well. - jc37 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If we all agreed on everything all the time, the world would be a boring place, and we'd never learn anything new. :)

I am glad that you commented, because your suggestions at the talk page are quite interesting. If there is broad consensus to deleted certain types of pages in userspace (e.g., abandoned and unsourced biographies of living people in the userspace of inactive users), then a narrowly-defined speedy deletion criterion (perhaps with an incorporated 7-day delay) could be more appropriate than PROD. PROD for articles in userspace is also an intriguing idea, and it would accomplish most of what I wanted to do with my original proposal.

I had attempted to limit the types of pages which could be PROD-ed under my proposal to only those that are actively problematic (I don't think that the unlimited userspace PROD which existed before would be useful), but I suppose you have a point that this could be interpreted to apply to certain userboxes and other non-article content in userspace beyond what I had proposed. I agree, by the way, with the provision that any page deleted via PROD (no matter where) should be restored upon user request.

I've added a separate reply to your comment at WT:PROD. Cheers, and thanks again for offering your thoughts, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded there.

And I dunno what was going on with my cereal today, but wow my comments come across much harsher than intended now that I re-read them later.

So for that, regardless that you wisely took it in stride, i apologise.

Anyway, upon further reflection, I seriously think we should avoid expanding PROD for anything more than it is. I've already seen too much gaming of the system with it, I don't want to imagine more than I already have of how it can be further abused if we open up userspace to it.

With the recent addition of soft deletion for AfD, I think a soft speedy for this (articles in userspace) shouldn't be difficult to get a consensus for.

What do you think? - jc37 06:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No need, my friend. :)

I think your idea is definitely worth discussing, in particular for: (1) unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs; (2) non-blatant advertising; and (3) abandoned drafts which violate internal copyright. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it would effectively handle most of the problem pages which I wanted to address with my userspace PROD proposal (by the way, see Reyk's reply to your comment ... there may have been a misunderstanding there).

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc

Please STOP editing my user space. If you find something that YOU THINK is wrong tell me and I'll determine if it needs attention. Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mlpearc#User page edits (diff). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 31

Ping : ) - jc37 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which discussion(s) to look at there... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, thought I added the complete link. Well it's pretty much moot since it's closed now. - jc37 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:3PO

• Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Canvassing_is_a_bad_thing

So am I crazy? - jc37 20:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Crazy people don't ask themselves if they're crazy. :)

I can see TheFreeloader's point about the common usage of the term on Wikipedia, but I think that restricting the definition to the negative meaning only could cause confusion regarding appropriate notification. I've commented in more detail at the project talk page.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: discussion is ongoing yet. And I think we're getting closer to figuring out what should be done. - jc37 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not very happy with you

So, you went ahead and made an out-of-process deletion of the Service Award categories anyway. I ask you, again, to restore the categories and send them to CfD if you like. If you refuse, I intend to fight you on this right down the line. Herostratus (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean for my action to personally upset you. I waited for two days after another editor's third opinion (that CSD G4 applied) for you to comment, and proceeded with the deletion only after I noticed that you had resumed editing (and, thus, could have seen the most recent comments).

The recreation, without a deletion review, of a category which was deleted according to a consensus reached in a deletion discussion is what was out-of-process. My re-deletion was entirely in line with CSD G4, which does not have a time limit.

If you believe that the original consensus was flawed or has changed, please contact the editor who closed the original discussion and/or initiate a deletion review. I have no desire to "fight" anyone and am even willing to offer my assistance in taking the next steps in the proper process: contacting the closing admin and, if appropriate, initiating a deletion review. If the consensus (ultimately) is that the categories should exist, then I will gladly help to undo what I've done. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will go through contacting the closing admin and then, if necessary, DRV. However, the close, although marginal in my view, wasn't really egregiously bad, which is what DRV is for. But anyway, we'll see how that goes. Failing that, I might initiate an RFC to get a sense of if there is an expiration date in these cases. If not three years, what about five years? What about ten years? To hold that an entity cannot be recreated ten years after a poorly-populated discussion and a marginal (but not really DRV-overturnable) close, when most if not all of the commenting editors have left and attitudes and practices have changed would be insane, in my view. We can't be subject to a dead hand like that. But we'll see how it goes. Herostratus (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the usefulness of a time limit on G4 depends on whether relevant guidelines or policies have changed. If they have, then DRV will reflect that (DRV can also, of course, consider the age of the previous discussion). If they have not, then all that a time limit will do is require a re-confirmation of unchanged consensus.

Anyway, please let me know if I can be of help during the process. I personally oppose the categories and believe consensus on them has not changed, but if it has changed, I will help to implement whatever the new consensus is. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I initiated a DRV case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 13; the DRV is of the speedy and not the original 2007 close. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have commented at the DRV. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

They just opened it up for nominations.

I'd like to ask you to consider running.

You have had a lot of experience all over Wikipedia, and I seem to recall that you have been active in not a few things relating to arbcom - for example, weren't you one of the observers in something or other?

Anyway, I think you have the judgement, the civility, and honestly the strength of character to survive the ordeal that is arbcom.

So now that I've painted such a rosy picture, is there any chance that I could convince you to run? : ) - jc37 01:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored by your characterization of me but, unfortunately, I presently lack the time to take on such a major commitment.

I already have set my sights on multiple projects on Wikipedia and off-wiki (hence my occasional absences), and I am reluctant to let myself be pulled in many more directions lest I meet the same fate as Shang Yang. :) Although, of course, I doubt that choice was an issue in his case.

Also, I would need to refamiliarize myself with ArbCom's rules, procedures and requirements to feel comfortable running, since I don't doubt that at least some of them have changed since the last two ArbCom cases in which I participated.

I'm flattered by your suggestion, but (at the risk of using a possible cliche) perhaps next year... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nod, though I think more than 5 chariots would be involved if you ran : )

(No disrespect to Shang Yang et al, intended of course)

And though I'm disappointed, I'm not surprised - I should have asked this a month or so ago. But I saw the notice and thought about who a.) I'd like to see run, and b.) who I think would actually succeed - and I decided to ask you : )

As an aside, I'm sorry to hear that carcaroth isn't running again. His sincerity in attempting to resolve cases will be missed by me. (Not that others are not sincere, but I think you know what I mean...)

And I recently used a similar "cliche" on an current RfA myself. So no worries. Cliches often become that way often due to their applicability. "New" doesn't always equal "better" : ) - jc37 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember a quote about judging the impact a person had on the world by how many people attend his or her funeral ... of course, that says nothing about how many of those in attendance are there to mourn. ;)

I wasn't aware that Carcharoth wasn't running, and I too will miss his presence on ArbCom. At least he'll still be editing, though, so that's a consolation (I was very sorry to find out about Rlevse's departure...).

What about you ... have you ever considered running? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse is an example in my head that I use to remind myself of how an editor may be awesome, and exemplary in many ways, and yet have foibles. (I don't know if you recall, but the scouting categories' IWANTIT situation really left a bad taste in my mouth.)

And yes, I am sorry to see what happened. I think that the situation could have been handled better, but am unfortunately not surprised at how it was handled by the community. I will miss his insight.

As for me, I don't think I'd succeed. I've had several wikibreaks for real life reasons. (Which is sometimes a reason to oppose.) And I'm not adverse to attempting to help out in contentious areas. (Such as closing a contentious discussion, or attempting to help an editor find ways to positively contribute to a discussion while in the middle of a contentious situation, such as recently with Hipocrite.)

And the likely "kiss of death" is something I learned from the "old timers", and still believe to be true: We're all Wikipedians here. So, in general, "experienced editors" shouldn't receive "special treatment". As noted about Rlevse above, just because a person can be awesome in other areas, doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes (regardless of whether intentional or unintentional), or that those mistakes should not be addressed.

So anyway, if I thought I would succeed in the election, I would run sometime, because (as you know) I like to help. And I honestly feel that I could help.

Thanks for thinking of me though : ) - jc37 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User interest templates

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the user interest templates. The original concept of these templates was to identify Wikipedians with some sort of interest in a subject or geographic region and the genesis of that interest. In this respect, the word interest was taken to mean a very general interest which, with encouragement, might escalate to contributing articles on the subject and eventually to membership in the corresponding WikiProject.

Most of the regional user interest templates have 18 userbox options and five associated regional categories. Each of the userbox options defaults to enrolling the user in the corresponding regional user interest category. (Each of the five categories may be individually activated or deactivated, but this is seldom done.) Since most of these userbox options have equivalent userbox templates with a single associated regional category, Wikipedians have the option of selecting a regional interest userbox or a more specific single category userbox. I am sure that some native Virginians could care less about the Commonwealth, but many do have an active interest.

You are absolutely correct about the potential of these templates to dilute the regional interest categories. My intent was to broaden these categories into a pool of interested individuals who might be encouraged to escalate their participation. You may well be correct that a greater need exists for identifying the most active participants in a subject area. I think this could best be accomplished within the WikiProjects, perhaps by designating "lead contributors" or some other sort of designation. I would like to hear your thoughts. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and considered response. I was not aware that each category could be individually activated or deactivated, but that is a wonderfully flexible option. It is great that a native of Virginia, for example, could activate or deactive an interest category according to his or her preferences. In this respect, I understand what you mean about expanding the "pool of interested individuals".

My only concern remains the default assumption of an interest. I realize that {{User interest Virginia}}, to continue the example, provides multiple userbox and user categorization options, but people generally choose userboxes for the userbox itself and not for the categories, no? In this sense, someone may not even notice which categories come with which version of the userbox.

Would it not be more accurate to avoid default assumptions about interest and, instead, categorize by interest only when interest is explicitly stated or when users choose to opt in? In other words, rather than connecting interest with residence, birth, or travel as a default and requiring users to opt out if they have no interest, we could avoid inferring interest and instead allow users to opt in to the interest categories.

I look forward to your response. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that placing a userbox on your user page shows at least some degree of interest in the subject. We certainly could default to no interest for all regional interest userbox options other than 1 and 17, although that does render the Category:Interest user templates rather meaningless. I suppose we could rename and reclassify all these templates. What would you suggest? Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Placing a userbox on one's user page may indicate an interest, or it may not, depending on the text of the userbox. I could, for example, add {{User interest Oregon|2}} to my user page—indicating that I have visited Oregon, which is true—but I have no particular interest in Oregon-related topics. See, for example, the usage of location userboxes at User:Autrigón.

I think we should default to "no interest" for all regional userboxes which do not explictly express an interest (i.e., all except options 1, 9, 11, 13 and 17). Category:Interest user templates does need some cleanup, but it would not be entirely useless as long as it contains userboxes such as User:UBX/LGBTinterest.

As far as renaming is concerned ... I think that, given the diverse options offered by these templates, it could be useful to rename them to a more general title. One possibility may be to drop the word "interest" from the userbox title—e.g., {{User interest Oregon}} → {{User Oregon}}—and, to preserve transclusions of the other template, make "lives in" the default option (#1) and move "interested in" to another option number. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Please pardon me for adding in my 2 pence : )

First, I like the idea of standardisation options.

But I agree with BF that "lives in" should be the default (Category:Wikipedians in Oregon), rather than "interested in". (Noting that if we change the numbers, then we should obviously be prepared to change all the pages that this is transcluded on. Though this is simple bot work, I would guess.)

Also, "loves" (or "likes" for that matter) doesn't necessarily mean "interest", per quite a few discussions I've had.

And Category:American Wikipedians should be a parent cat (not-populated). With each Wikipedian being a member of one of it's subcats (whether some state or district or possession). - jc37 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean Category:Wikipedians in the United States? American Wikipedians is the nationality category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the categories which the userbox includes. But yes, both should probably be parent cats. - jc37 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a closer look at Template:User interest Oregon.

The first thing that stands out to me is that the category choices should be directly related to the text. (Which they are.) But images are irrelevant. And honestly, to allow for eventual growth, and noting that every state userbox will have its own assortment of images, I would suggest making image choice par2 (and moving the current par2 to par7).

And also since the first 8 (plus 15 and 17) cover the text options as listed, I would suggest the following as far as default and display order:

• lives in (6) -> 1 (default)
• native (5) -> 2
• citizen (7) -> 3
• native citizen(8) -> 4
• lived in (3) -> 5
• visited (2) -> 6
• direct ancestor (4) -> 7
• loves (15) -> 8
• interested in (1) -> 9
• WikiProject (17) -> 10

This just seems more intuitive in ordering. What do you both think? - jc37 20:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There are now 224 templates in the Category:Regional interest user templates series. I am currently expanding this series to eventually include all major geographic regions, countries, and major provinces and states. I created this series about three years ago to provide an alternative to the User REGION templates. The User REGION templates are currently in a horrendously fractured state. Some of these templates declare a Wikipedian in REGION category, some a NATIONALITY category, some multiple categories, and many no category at all. Many of these templates use the wording "This user comes from REGION.", leaving unclear whether the user still lives in the region or even whether the user has any current connection to the region. There are scores of other regional userbox wordings, some very precise and some incomprehensible.

The members of each regional WikiProject are understandably very protective of their own User REGION templates. I am not really certain whether any single series of templates could make everyone happy. Let me put together a couple of prototypes encompassing some of your suggestions. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User category topical index

Would you happen to have any ideas for what to do with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index/Unsorted? As a subpage, it is useful for minimizing clutter in the main index, but an unsorted list is not otherwise useful per se. (I've also asked VegaDark for his ideas).

The issue with the Service Awards categories (recreated, speedied, reverted, re-reverted, and now at DRV) brought my attention back to the topical index, which is also in need of updating (it is missing a year's worth of discussions). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this information is important. If only for the "no I'm not singling out your category choice for review/deletion". Which was a common complaint/accusation once upon a time.

We could ask a bot owner to update the page with links to Wikipedian-related category closures. I would think that that should be fairly easy to do?

But the topical groupings would seem to demand non automated work. And over time it gets to be a big backlog. (As we've noticed.)

Plus, some categories' discussions fall under more than one section.

Maybe the solution could be to re-assess the sections? Maybe we made it too organised, and being more general in topic headings would work better? - jc37 21:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd forgotten about that particular complaint.

A bot may be able to identify most user category discussions fairly easily, but some will probably slip through (e.g., Cat:Cold War survivors). And I suspect you're right about the need for manual work to organize by topic.

I've started checking the CfD and DRV archives and updating the index, and its faster work than before (only because there are fewer user category discussions, but it's still something).

I don't know how changing the section organization would work ... they could be made more inclusive, but that could diminish their utility. Also, any significant change would break a lot of incoming links. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think if we made a group effort, we could definitely make some progress of bringing this back up to date. In my sandbox I had been working on essentially the same thing, except even more detailed down to each individual category that has been deleted (although no groupings by subject, which is extremely helpful). The problem is how boring and time consuming it is to work on that list. I'd say keeping that list as is is better than nothing, but it would obviously be better if we updated the main list. VegaDark (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea behind your sandbox project. The topical index is a list of precedents, basically, which served as the basis for WP:OC/U, but a list of links to the actual deleted categories would make it much easier to identify recreations. I can imagine how tedious the work is ... is there any chance that a bot or toolserver/database report could be of use? For example, if it is possible to check Special:Log/delete for pages in the category namespace containing the word "User" or "Wikipedian" (and their plural forms) in the title, then that would be a good start. Of course, manual work still would be needed to determine why the categories were deleted (i.e., CSD C1, CSD G7 or CFD) and if CSD G4 applies. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Regional categories userbox templates

I've posted some thoughts about regional categories userbox templates at User talk:Buaidh#Regional categories userbox templates. I'd appreciate your comments. Your aye,  Buaidh  16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look and reply at your user talk page (so that the discussion can be kept in one place). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity categories

• Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Disallowing_cats_by_ethnicity

Depending on how the discussion continues, I may be asking for your help in some tagging... - jc37 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. The general discussion about categorization on that talk page is one in which I would like to participate, so thanks for bringing my attention to it. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_13

I've gone ahead and closed the Wikipedia user service award categories (there are 17) as "start a discussion". Given the likelihood that the previous G4 will be endorsed by such a discussion, I don't see the need to restore the categories at this point. Also, given your offer to reverse your actions should consensus be in favor of it, I thought it appropriate for you to just go ahead and start the CfD that the majority of participants at DRV endorsed. Drop me a note if you want me to do it, though. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a note here first. I've started the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22#Wikipedian Service Award Level categories. I appreciate that you did not think a restoration at this time was necessary, but I will certainly restore the categories if that's the consensus at CfD. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Image-Class Louisville articles

Can you do whatever has to happen to make Category:Image-Class Louisville articles into Category:File-Class Louisville articles? It's the only one left.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do about that one, actually. I think that the page causing the issue is Template:WikiProject Louisville/class, but it seems that the project may have deliberately decided (see diff) not to have a File-Class category (for example, I noticed that they also have an Audio-class category). I'll look into it some more and probably start a thread at Template talk:WikiProject Louisville to obtain clarification. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested clarification from User:MSGJ, who added the "file=no" parameter to the template. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Now at Template talk:WikiProject Louisville... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I implemented the change. Category:File-Class Louisville articles is being populated, and I will delete the Image-Class category once it is empty. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No tags

I think we missed something at WP:DELPRO...

Procedural keeps due to the page(s) in question not being tagged.

But I'm not sure where that should be added. -jc37 06:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it might have been one of the speedy keep criteria, but it is not mentioned there.

I think it is usually better, in such cases, to tag and relist the discussion, so perhaps a note could be added in the "Relisting discussions" section. On the other hand, this situation does not come up too much and is often taken care of by other editors during the 7-day discussion period.

What do you think? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't require closers to have to go through and tag (especially group noms, and if they don't have the extra tools to help).

Also, the 7 days should start from the moment it's tagged, based upon the typical presumptions with the process.

Maybe this should be in a separate section. It probably should be the first thing that a closer looks for: Was it tagged, and has it been 7 days since it was tagged? And if not, do such-n-such. - jc37 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right ... I hadn't considered group noms.

A separate section ("Procedural closure", maybe) would be useful, I think, and it could cover the various circumstances where a deletion discussion could be closed with what amounts to a null outcome: page not tagged, wrong venue, not eligible for deletion (e.g., any page while it is featured on the Main Page), disruptive nominations, and others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea.

And that's a decent list to start. (Though I dunno if a disruptive nom would be considered "procedural".)

We should also probably note that a poorly formatted nom is no reason to close. (Avoiding WP:BITE.)

And speedy closes (due to qualifying CSD) could probably be placed here as well. Since it's about venue and procedure. (As opposed to SNOW or POINT ones.)

And thinking about SNOW and POINT, it would be nice to have some suggestion concerning how to deal with inappropriately canvassed discussions. But what would we call such a section? - jc37 01:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on mentioning poorly formatted nominations.

I think the issue of handling inappropriately canvassed deletion discussions could be addressed in the "Consensus" subsection. There already is a sentence about level of consensus (local versus community), and another sentence on inappropriate canvassing could fit nicely after it. What do you think?

I think you're also right about POINT noms ... that would probably fit better under "Early closure": if a disruptive nomination is closed after seven days of discussion, then that's no longer really "procedural".

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Also - should CFD's "speedy renames" section be noted somewhere? That's a procedural nom (rather than a procedural close) especially since they may be moved to CfD if it's determined to not be a speedy situation (not unlike PROD leading to AfD). Since Prod is noted, we probably should note this, I think?

Anyway, we should probably "go live" with this stuff, huh? lol - jc37 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief note in the "Speedy deletion" section (WP:CSD#C)? Since the situation is fairly specialized, I think we can follow the example of the PROD section and mainly point to WP:CFD/S as the location to visit for more information.

We should. :) I have to be off for a few hours, but I can help write the new section later today (UTC: early tomorrow). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm currently trying to get my thoughts around something for FT2, but you know me, typically working on/thinking about several pages/issues at once : ) - jc37 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section for "Procedural closure" and a sentence on canvassing. I did not add anything about POINT noms as that is already covered by the speedy keep criteria, which are mentioned. I'm sure I missed or glossed over a few key points, though... -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I just went through and did some copy editing (mostly re-arranging/re-framing sentences, and structure).

I have to say: This looks really good. The whole idea that such pages should reflect common practice really seems to shine here.

You did an amazing job. - jc37 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though I couldn't have done it without your help and ideas. :)==Two questions==

1. I think there should be a picture for Julie Kavner, the voice of Marge Simpson. Would this one for acceptable: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/File:Juliekavner.jpeg 2. It says the Hikaru_Sulu that he is of both Japanese and Filipino descent. Should there be category for Sulu called Fictional American people of Filipino descent? Please let me know.

I noticed that there have been about 20–30 edits since I last looked at the page, so I'll take a closer look at that (and the subsection below) as soon as time allows. Recently, my off-wiki schedule has been quite tiring—not much busier than usual, but much more unpredictable and unstable. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging

• Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes

I've started looking at the various pages that concern deletion.

And i think, due to the previous state of WP:DELPRO, other pages appeared to fill the gap, as it were.

At this point, I think the above three should be merged to WP:DELPRO.

Also, I am tempted to suggest that the "how to" guides at the bottom of WP:DELPRO should be all merged together on a single page as well. (There's a fair amount of redundancy).

The guide, overall, stands well as a separate page, since it deals with what editors should expect and what the community expects in return, regarding nominations and participating in the discussion. And Wikipedia:Deletion process dealing more with closing discussions and taking action based upon the closure.

(With that in mind, Deletion process seems to apply to all three pages (Guide to deletion, Deletion process, and the proposed technical "How-to" page for closing the various XfD pages.)

So Wikipedia:Deletion process may need a rename?

Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy could use some link updates regarding such pages and discussions.

And Wikipedia:Deletion discussions is another page to keep in mind.

(I'm trying to assemble a list of links which may apply, Wikipedia:Closing discussions, for example.)

Are there ant other policies/guidelines which should be involved in this particular cleanup? - jc37 01:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I think, on both points: (1) duplication, and (2) naming and scope. With regard to the issue of duplication, there certainly is significant overlap between Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, as well as between the various guides for editors. Merging them into one page likely would be helpful. With regard to the issue of naming and scope, I agree that the name "Deletion process" is too general for the information which is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion process—the page was and is a guide for administrators mainly.

The actual deletion process includes, I think, six components distributed across numerous pages:

1. Guidance for nominators (e.g. WP:BEFORE) and participants (e.g. WP:AADD, WP:AFDEQ);
2. Guidance for closers and administrators (e.g. WP:Deletion process, WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators);
3. Step-by-step instructions for nominators (e.g. WP:CFD#HOWTO);
4. Step-by-step instructions for closers (e.g. WP:Deletion process#Step-by-step instructions);
5. Guidance for page creators (e.g. WP:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!, WP:Why was my page deleted?); and
6. Process and venue pages (e.g. WP:PROD, WP:AFD).

Ideally, in my opinion, a page titled "Deletion process" should serve as a central hub from which editors could find more appropriate pages. However, renaming or rescoping would break thousands of incoming links, and some work would be required to fix them. The good news is that a large portion of incoming links are through shortcut redirects such as WP:RELIST, which can easily be retargeted, and several thousand more are through transclusions (e.g., {{Opentask}}).

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)