DexDor

 

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gibb (surname). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That may be of interest to User:Richard Gibb. DexDor ^(talk) 21:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Wikipedia articles by where they incorporate a citation from, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The subcat page which you linked to supports using subcategories instead of a century category:

• "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it."

The Interwar period specifically covers November 1918 to September 1939. Why do you think that a 20th century (1901-2000) is more appropriate? Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This relates to edits such as this.

Hi Dimadick. The topic of the 1920s (for example) is a subtopic of the interwar period; not the other way round.  WP:SUBCAT begins "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second ..." and also says "Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops". The bit about being as low down as possible (imo) means whilst also obeying the other (fundamental) rules of categorization. I.e. it's an additional rule, not an alternative option to following the other rules. DexDor ^(talk) 07:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then, should I reverse the parent-child relationship? It excludes military vehicles of the late 1910s, which are part of the interwar period. Dimadick (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dimadick, The 1910s and the interwar period are overlapping topics, but neither is a subtopic of the other.  Hence, putting those two categories in a parent child relationship in either direction would be wrong (e.g. it would cause miscategorization of articles); in such cases it may be useful to put see-also links between the categories. DexDor ^(talk) 13:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2013's Tropical Storm Yagi. Since you had some involvement with the 2013's Tropical Storm Yagi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012's Tropical Storm Wukong. Since you had some involvement with the 2012's Tropical Storm Wukong redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You previously commented at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 18#Category:Assassination attempt survivors. You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 24#Category:Failed assassination attempt survivors. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please see my proposal to rename categories Category:Military vehicles 2010–2019 etc Hugo999 (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Muslim user templates has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

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

No indication of meeting WP:NORG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DexDor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gibb".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lunatic fringe (term) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunatic fringe (term) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Ottawa portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

This page is not related to Alex9777777, please do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles there is , then let it be and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Belarusian_music_chart_%22LF_Top_Songs%22 The world is equal for everyone, the category has the right to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The chart has official pages -> https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x Please respect the work of other people and do not delete the category!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please stop removing articles and categories because a parent 5 levels away is a linguistics one, and the articles aren't about linguistics. This isn't how WP works, & if you start tugging on that thread you'll never stop. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Johnbod, That's exactly how wp categorization is supposed to work - and does work in most cases; I'm fixing categorizations that are deviations from the norm. Please read WP:SUBCAT etc and if you think there's a problem with that please explain (preferably on the relevant wt page rather than here).

In most/all cases of this miscategorization it's probably because someone thinks "A" (a word) is a term used in a field B so they place Category:A in Category:B_terminology. This is wrong because in wp we categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the title (see, for example, the discussions about loanwords categories a few years ago). This often causes 2 forms of miscategorization - e.g. your edit to Category:Streaming has put Category:Internet radio under Category:Television terminology when the articles in that radio category are not about TV or terminology. DexDor ^(talk) 07:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has never been the case that all the articles in a category are supposed to be directly appropriate for a parent several levels up. I'm astonished someone as experienced as you can assert that. Even if it were the case, the best approach would be to remove category connections at the top rather than at the bottom, as you did. Obviously none of the articles in Category:Musical terminology have anything to do with linguistics (God knows why you picked on this one in particular). Hardly any of the thousands of articles in all the subcats of Category:Terminology are anything to do with linguistics, applied or otherwise, in any meaningful sense; they are just about words. If this really was a problem, the solution would be to remove the dubious parenting of Category:Terminology by Category:Applied linguistics - well, I've done that as it seems inappropriate. I'll just add Terminology to that category. Problem solved! The example you give is a good one for showing your misunderstanding of how categories are supposed to work. If this really were a problem, the solution would be to delete Category:Streaming, or divide all the contents between the various media (with most articles being in several by-media categories) but of course this would not be sensible or supported. I agree the "terminology" categories tend to get over-cluttered, but this is absolutely not about things being or not being about linguistics, but just things not really being about "terminology". You have perhaps been misled by our useless article on Terminology, which until just now completely failed to even mention the main and obvious meaning of the word. Our terminology sub-cats are (as is completely obvious) about "terms used in an art etc." rather than "science of of proper use of terms" - the two meanings given by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (in their entirety). Most of our articles on marginal linguistic topics are really terrible. Your essay User:DexDor/Terminology categories seems to misunderstand this. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Jmoskowitz - You did not leave a message on my talk page but my notifications indicated you reverted First Responder because it was felt the link to Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging was not related. But we clarified the linkage with an update to the VOCAL-THREE description which is a device to protect First Responders by letting their headquarters know where they are located at all times. This avoids situations that have happened where firefighter are being surrounded by fires but no one knows exactly where they are to warn them. It is important for people reading the first responder article to know things have been created to protect such people. —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jmoskowitz, lots of things have been created to help such people. It appears that the purpose of your edits is to promote Satellite Enhanced Emergency Messaging System (not to improve the encyclopedia). DexDor ^(talk) 19:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Asparagales of Southwestern Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:DexDor. I found my way here, if I recall correctly, by reading guides (or reading templates, can't remember). However, I made a point of it as you have been involved with some deeper considerations on what it means to categorise things.

• I've been trying to start a discussion about a sort of centralised tree. Traditionally, a tree with an explanation, charting assumptions on the categorisation of knowledge, has been considered one of the most important parts of an encyclopaedia. While Wikipedia has several trees of categorised content, it has nothing like a Propaedia, or like the preface to Chambers Cyclopaedia[1].

• The style of these publications is easy. What is more difficult is deciding the first divisions. On Chambers it starts natural/scientific. On Wikipedia it might start content/administration, however, what is the first division of content? Is it between natural and scientific, as Chambers did, etc.

• I am trying putting it that a tree like this is not my idea, but is long considered essential to what an encyclopaedia is (without regard to Wikipedia), and that this tree has already been supposed and written, that we merely have to find the various branches and rewrite them in Wikipedias image.

You obviously have, at least one time, a bit of a keen interest in this sort of thing so, in your opinion Dex,

• What is the first division in the categories of knowledge? Why?

• Can you think of a division as broadly encompassing as nature/science, but with three or more divisions?

• Also, anything else.

My outlook here is to build a category tree, except that it explains its divisions as it goes, thereby creating a strong guide to categorisation, but will also consequently guide readers browsing content. That will make it a practical project, but there'll also be a strong sense of philosophy in it as we will have to define the nature of things in general, for instance, where would such a trees categorisation start? ~ R.T.G 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi RTG. We should keep administration separate from content (WP:APANA). Wp's content category structure should form a "logical framework for all(?) human knowledge" (copying from Propædia) and the category structure should be better than the outline in a printed book as we can put (for example) "Castles of England" under both "Castles" and "England".

We have Category:Main topic classifications which is intended to be the "first level" you refer to, but that does tend to suffer from editors putting their favourite subject into it (ignoring WP:SUBCAT).

TBH I don't think wp needs (yet) another way of organising topics; we already have categories, outlines, indices, portals etc and these are all pretty much irrelevant to readers who just look at the article that Google/Search takes them to and then navigate to other articles using links. If you still think there's a need to add a new "content tree" to wp then I strongly recommend that you develop clear ideas in your user pages (e.g. an essay) and get feedback from other editors before doing anything in other namespaces. DexDor ^(talk) 08:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This sort of tree is what the other trees are afraid to do, DexDor. They are all inspired by this tree. They are all trying to achieve this tree. Surely all of the components have already been written somewhere many times. It's an inevitable part of the site. Yes indeed I am just taking my time and going through some editors who are definitely interested in such a thing, seeking ideas.

Category:Main topic classifications has no apparent basis. A knowledge tree would solve that issue for many things in one project. ~ R.T.G 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree overall with DexDor's helpful summary above of the overall existing structure here at Wikipedia. (See, Dexdor? we do have things we can agree on.  ) thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Monocots of Southwestern Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hi DexDor, Regarding this edit, that is the Thai gun hoaxster. You can use the geolocate link on the bottom of their contribs page and if it is Thailand then it is best to report them to AIV so they will be blocked. Cheers,
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm on a mission cleaning up some WP:TEMPLATECATs and found an edit you made in 2015 doing the same. Do you remember if you added the category to the pages linked in that template (or checked that it was already there)? --Izno (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I just took care of the 1 edit I thought might need to be made. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I probably would have checked at least a good sample. DexDor ^(talk) 20:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi DexDor. Now that we are acquainted , I wanted to write to give you a heads-up on a new category. I've just created a new category, Category:Wikipedia formatting, and put the article Wikipedia:Typography there. if you feel this category is superfluous, or is duplicated elsewhere, you can feel free to let me know. it just seemed like a category that we might need here. so far, maybe you and I disagree on a few category issues, but I felt like it would be worthwhile to get your input nonetheless. who knows, maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.   lol jk.

Anyway, please feel free to comment. By the way, I just posted a similar note to the one above at the talk page for category:Wikipedia help, just to get further input if anyone wishes to do so. I appreciate your help. (in a manner of speaking, I suppose.)   seriously, I appreciate it. thanks! cheers!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

hi. after I left the note above, I found the category Category:Wikipedia article elements help, so I put the Wikipedia:Typography article in there; it was not in there before. since the existing category seems more useful, I will redirect the one that I created there. thanks anyway! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of wars named after non-human animals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:LISTN.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi DexDor, perhaps you could add some perspective to the discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Not global? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought agriculture only meant the growing of crops. Thanks for pointing that out. Every day is a school day on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether it's just me, but I hate these mixed or intersectional categories that cut across kinds of category, like Category:Ant spiders of Europe. If you want to know the species of Zodarion found in Europe, then PetScan will find the intersection of the taxonomic and distribution categories. The intersectional categories are inconsistently set up, so unpredictable, and redundant. Moan over! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

My edit to Zodarion emarginatum was just removing a redundant category.

Regarding inconsistency: For example, this article is in Category:Pieridae of South America,Category:Butterflies of Canada,Category:Lepidoptera of Brazil,Category:Fauna of the Amazon,Category:Arthropods of Argentina,Category:Invertebrates of Bolivia plus several others.  Incidentally, most of those categories were added to that article by an editor who was later blocked for category-related disruption.  I'm generally trying to reduce the number of geographical regions by which fauna is categorized to alleviate this.

I'll add more notes later. DexDor ^(talk) 18:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate all the work you are doing trying to sort out geographical categorization of organisms; my comment above was in no way a criticism. I prefer to remove the intersectional category where there is redundancy. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

But what you would do is removing an article from a category that it's a valid member of. E.g. if an article about a person is categorized in both British scientists and British biologists it's the latter category that should be removed. DexDor ^(talk) 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was only talking about the taxon distribution categories. If I see Category:Ant spiders of Europe and Category:Spiders of Europe I personally favour removing the former. The primary focus for distribution categories for spiders (as with other groups) seems to me to be the distribution not the taxonomic unit, so if "Category:Spiders of X" needs diffusing, then break up by "X", not by "spiders". Your work on defining clear geographical areas for animals should make this easier, if we can get consensus (there are editors determined to use political boundaries). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not a big deal to me in this case, but a "rule" of categorization is that if an article meets the inclusion criteria for a category then that article shouldn't be removed from the category (emptying a category out of process is frowned upon at CFD). If you think a category (such as ASofE) shouldn't exist then you can try upmerging it at CFD, but you might find other editors (not me) say that the upmerged category would be "overpopulated".

If editors do want to diffuse a category like this I'd prefer it be diffused by taxon rather than by geography as the latter is much easier to implement and much more effective at diffusing (e.g. if a spiders-of-x category contains 1000 articles you might find that a spiders-of-north-x category contains 900 articles). DexDor ^(talk) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

One argument for diffusing by geography is that there are sources for "Spiders of REGION", both online and books, so checks are possible, whereas there are less often sources for a particular genus or family by region. But categorization is such a mess that this is a minor issue.

A problem for me with CFD and other category change processes is that editors there regard their local consensus as over-riding any content wikiproject consensus, and this will apply to your work, even if approved across tree of life wikiprojects. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

If (to take an extreme case) there are 1000 articles in Category:Spiders_of_Asia that each just say "... is a species of spider found in Asia" then a categorizer simply can't diffuse by geography.

Ok, so then the question is how to decide rationally on breaking up a list of spiders that really do occur widely in Asia? What criteria should be used to split by taxonomic category? For plants, there are some very major and widely understood groups, like ferns or conifers. Once you go below Araneomorphae, there are no obvious subgroups that make sense to any but specialists. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

To expand a bit: the real problem with, say, "Category:Lycosidae of Asia", is the opportunity for multiple categorization that it gives rise to. Assume "Category:Spiders of Asia" and "Category:Spiders of Japan" exist, but not "Category:Lycosidae of Japan". Then a species of the family Lycosidae that occurs in Japan can be categorized in both "Category:Spiders of Japan" and "Category:Lycosidae of Asia". These two will both be subcategories of "Category:Spiders of Asia", but neither is a subcategory of the other, so both can legitimately be used. I come across examples like this regularly, i.e. the use of a category for a narrow taxonomic group with a broad distribution area plus a category for a broad taxonomic group with a narrow distribution area. It's this that I find a problem. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest (if necessary) trying to dissuade users from diffusing large TOL categories - e.g. by getting agreement at TOL and then putting a notice on the category pages.

I've seen cases where an article is in 3 or more levels of taxonomy+geography categories (e.g. fauna-of-county, mammals-of-country, primates-of-continent), but I'm not sure that's really a problem. Reducing the number of areas used for categorization should improve this.

There's a related problem; the article belongs in the Japan category, but (per WP:SUBCAT) shouldn't be directly in both the Japan and the Asia category. If we could delete the Japan category and have Asia divided up systematically (e.g. East Asia, South Asia etc) that would make things a lot neater. That's the direction I'm heading (slowly), but deleting fauna-of-Japan might face resistance from nationalistic "it deserves a category" editors. DexDor ^(talk) 12:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I guess we differ on whether 3 or more levels of taxonomy+geography categories is a problem or not. It's messy, which I dislike, but, more importantly, the messiness confuses editors, and so species of the same taxonomic group with the same distribution end up being put into different subsets of these categories.

However, adopting a clear system like the one you are working on will definitely improve the situation, so I shouldn't distract you from pressing on! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cases where consensus at CFD differs from consensus at WP:TOL should be very rare. Do you have any examples? One example may be that ToL editors may prefer taxonomic categories to be at scientific names even if the corresponding article is at the common name, but CFDers generally prefer them to match. If my essays become more official (ToL guidance) that may help. DexDor ^(talk) 08:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, scrub my comments about CFD, etc. I don't want to go there any more. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

As you know, I'm not keen on any of the flora distribution subcategories that use taxonomic divisions, but the "bunchgrasses" ones, like Category:Bunchgrasses of Africa, seem particularly problematic. "Grass" at least has a taxonomic definition, so I can just about live with Category:Grasses of Africa. The bunchgrass categories are a typical product of the banned user Look2See1. Would you support nominating them for deletion? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes Peter, I'd support deletion. It's also unusual to  have a category like that without a corresponding non-geographic parent category. Note: I've CFDed several birds categories that used non-scientific terminology (example). DexDor ^(talk) 06:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 21:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Whpq (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edits? --Oscar012723487 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because you appear to just be messing around. DexDor ^(talk) 21:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't. There wasn't a reason for why pages in MediaWiki namespace don't have subpages, so I added the reason. Can you please explain how that was messing around? --Oscar012723487 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Naming of navbox categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cat:MTC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#Cat:MTC until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Tiger Lily Records (Canada) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NORG. No sources provided, not reliable sources for Canadian company on Google search.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Prehistoric animals. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Prehistoric animals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_18#Category:Moths_of_Western_Asia. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello DexDor! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:BioGeoCatMap AP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Antidisestablishmentarianism (word) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikipediaNeko (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Category administration link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Death of women has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BarleyButt (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wars named after animals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars named after animals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Aircrew clothing indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Military vehicles before World War I indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Military vehicles of the late modern period indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Building collapses on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Chasse-marée (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Catholic coat of arms images indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 2 § Category:Firelighting using electricity on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Weapons of the interwar period has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:School fire disasters has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of winners of Best Actor AACTA Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely redundant with AACTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role; also not a plausible redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply