User talk:Choster/20092010

For older talk please see User talk:Choster/2004, User talk:Choster/20052006, or User talk:Choster/20072008.

User:Wasifwasif

User:Wasifwasif has created the Category:Islamic_Shrines_in_Tamil_Nadu again. He repeatedly blanked the article that you moved and has created the category again. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DL Shuttle DCA-:LGA

The news article here (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2008-12-15-delta-new-york-washington-routes_N.htm) states that the LGA-DCA route will be downside to regional jets instead of MD80s. Should we put "Delta Shuttle operated by Shuttle America" instead of the "operated by Delta Air Lines" on the articles since the route will not use the MD88 jets. Cashier freak (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student groups

Thanks for your update. I think you were right, a re-write in a new nomination would probably help explain what you were going for and help gain more input. I've closed it as no consensus/relist, please feel free to re-nominate it at your leisure. --Kbdank71 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't remove the CFD tags from the categories, so you can just change the date. --Kbdank71 13:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation Barnstar

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		I took a peek at your recent contributions and was very impressed by your dedication to improving the categorisation of articles. I see that you received a barnstar for similar efforts last year, but I wanted to re-acknowledge the continual improvements you provide. Keep up the great work :) -- Notyourbroom (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition - Where did it go???

Acquisition in US military circles has nothing to do with "Target Acquisition" is a term related to how systems are procured in the military. The subcategories of the Acquisition page are all related to how US DoD buys its systems. Modeling and Simulation in US DoD is used in the Acquisition Cycle. I am surprised that no one sent me a talk/email to include me in the discussion be for making a decission to delete the Acquisition category.

By the way, I did see the discussion but not the details and though the Military Acquisition would be an appropriate change. I did not imagine that the category would be deleted. User:sidna (User_talk:sidna)

Thanks!!!

Hey, thank you for responding! I am a new Wikipedian and learning the ropes as fast as I can. I did move Acquisition (military) to Military Acquisition. Also, I significantly expanded the article. Before I made the category Acquisition, I did significant research into how I could add a Modeling & Simulation category which is ultimately what I am interested in. As it turns out, M&S in defense is used for Acquisition, Requirements, and Training. Only the Training aspect of M&S is covered in Wikipedia. As you can see on User:sidna, I am making a series of articles on M&S and things related to M&S.

In any case, it would help me greatly if you could review what I consider my best article: Irregular Warfare and critique it. Be as critical as possible since the point is for me to learn and be a better Wikipedian!

Also, I would like to understand more about Wikipedia glossary policy. Any comments that you have on that matter would be greatly appreciated. The glossary that I am interested in is Glossary of Military Modeling & Simulation.

Thanks! Sid Sidna (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. By the way, I examined Military Science which is the main article for the Category Military Science. Indeed, Acquisition is mentioned under the Military_science#Military systems section under the Military Logistics and Military technology and equipment subsections. This supports the claim to a Military Acquisition category under Military Science as was done since it supports various aspects of Systems and there is not Systems category under Military Science.

HotCat

I see you doing a lot of Category work -- which I applaud. Sometimes you're cleaning up after my omissions, sometimes refining with a cat that I didn't know existed.

Anyway, you might like to try HotCat, which lets you change a category in one step from any page. It's very easy to learn and use. Harder to learn and use, but a great timesaver if you're doing a lot in one list, is AWB.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I thought that AWB was restricted to admins, but I suppose I'll give it a whirl. HotCat I do not find especially useful, as it seems categories can only be edited individually and the interface is otherwise clunky.- choster (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that HotCat is clunky, but I find it faster than actually editing the article if I'm making only one or two cat changes.

AWB is restricted to people with more than 500 edits; you appear to have long since passed that. It's not terribly well documented and I am only barely competent with it, but if you have questions, feel free to ask. Since we both do a lot of Cat work (mine largely in Commons, which BTW, requires a separate AWB authorization), we might learn from each other. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural style categories

I've looked at some of the categorization for buildings and structures listed in Category:Colonial Revival architecture, Category:Classical Revival architecture, and a little bit of Category:Federal architecture. As far as WP:NRHP is concerned, it isn't using a bot to categorize articles, but editors often use an NRHP infobox generator that I wrote. It queries the National Register database and generates an infobox, along with appropriate categories, that can be used within the article. I'm planning to update the infobox generator so if there are subcategories by state, the generator will list them by state instead of listing the general category.

By the way, Category:Federal style buildings in Alabama should probably be renamed to Category:Federal style architecture in Alabama. I think there was one other that was misnamed, but I don't remember offhand.

I've been going through some of the large parent categories and using AWB to move the articles to subcategories when appropriate. Thanks for your interest in categorization. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countenance divine

I have opened an AfD for Countenance divine at WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine if you are interested. Tb (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TRINITY United Methodist Church (Garner, NC)

Greetings! I am new to the whole authoring thing on wikipedia. I'm looking for some help with my first article attempt. I've written something about the new church I'm starting. I noticed that you helped with the page for the North Carolina Annual Conference to which the church belongs. I think you helped clean up the categorization. A few minutes of your time with the TRINITY United Methodist Church (Garner, NC) page would be great! Thanks! Davidwehrle (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010

I saw your edits on the University of Canberra WP entry, and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this:

RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010.
ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there. Leighblackall (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of eponymous streets in New York City for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of eponymous streets in New York City, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eponymous streets in New York City until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere

Thanks, I'll finish the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere

Please weigh in on the requested move I proposed here CTJF83 chat 17:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]