User talk:Dawynn

This user may have left Wikipedia. Dawynn has not edited Wikipedia since 2 March 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

No problem! I'm glad you've decided to take on some tough topics. I should warn you that disagreements will be inevitable. But if you can find good research and keep an open mind in discussions, you'll find most editors are pretty reasonable. BTW, I haven't seen your updates to side-scrolling video game go through. Perhaps you forgot to save your edits? Randomran (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the page! I tried to tighten up the organization a little and added a tag to encourage further edits. It's not pretty but it sets it up to be improved further by other editors. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just realized that my post in talk may have come off as a little WP:BITE... I didn't realize you were as new to wiki as you are. As a good-faith gesture, I've fixed your WPVG userbox here (so it doesn't bleed into the subtopics). I've noticed that other WPVG members tend to place their WPVG tag on their user page rather than their user talk, but I'll leave that up to you. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article The City of Miami Television has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

multiple issues as tagged

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{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. Deb (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are a big contributor in the "List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games", and I'd like to invite you to contribute to the Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List of...games" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I know you might be watching the page and seen how I mention this on the Super NES games list page, but I hope you'll come and give you opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. (Floppydog66 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

When you do citations, you only need one vertical bar | after each portion of the template. Having double vertical bars breaks up the layout (see the edits that I have made to the articles that you have created). Thank you, MuZemike 06:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The VG Barnstar
		For all the great work you've done on the RPG-related lists and tables! Keep up the good work! SharkD (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you blanked the redirect at King of Kings (video game)? If you think the redirect should be deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of blanking it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article created for the Namco game called King of Kings

Hi, I noticed this redirect a couple of days ago, and changed it to redirect to Wesleyan Church. I think that makes sense as there shouldn't really be a different destination if someone types a capital letter or not. I notice that you have now redireted back to Wesleyan Church (United States). Now, I have no problem with that being the destination, if it is agreed that that is the primary topic, but until that is decided, surely we should be consistent and just have it redirected to the dab page (or get it deleted, in which case people would end up there anyway). Quantpole (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bump! Any comment on this? Quantpole (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to join the discussion: Talk:Wesleyan Church (United States)#Where should the disambig point? Dawynn (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest you guys seem to know more about it than I do, so I'll leave you to it. My only thinking was that Wesleyan Church and Wesleyan church should go to the same place. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I appreciate the effort you're putting in clearing up links to disambiguation pages! However, you could save yourself a bit of time and potentially nasty stares - I see you changed a link on Talk:Charles M. Schulz. WP:DPL suggests "Please avoid editing comments on "Talk:" pages; doing so is usually inadvisable per the talk page guidelines." It's best if comments are left saying what the editor said, rather than what you think they meant to say. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything related to TeX is a text editor. I know that the choice of stubs is limited due to the brain damaged wikiproject which limits creation of new, useful stubs, (and the lack of software to do this automatically, e.g. WP:Category intersection) but miscategorizing software to satisfy them isn't a good alternative. Pcap ping 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Thank you for correcting my miscategorizing TeX articles. I thought it was primarily a Text Formatting tool, so figured Text Editor was as good as any. I'll stay away from the TeX articles then and let someone else categorize them. Dawynn (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could tag them with {{typ-stub}} in addition to the software stub, but the former doesn't even appear to be an approved stub type per WP:SST. This fact only reinforces my opinion of the useless bureaucracy that WikiProject has become. Pcap ping 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag science fiction fanzines as "hobby" stubs. They are cultural/literary magazines, and have for decades provided much of the most useful and incisive criticism in this field. "lit-mag" or "culture-mag" is the better category by far. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been moving things out of the "culture" mag stub area. It's been highly overused -- I left a note on the discussion page for the category about this. Basically -- with a loose meaning of "culture", *every* magazine is about a culture of some sort -- and that was about how it had been used. I've been moving the category more to a category for specific people groups in a specific small geographical region. With this definition, sci-fi fanzines definitely don't apply.

As for the lit mags... I wasn't sure this really applied either. The couple that I put under hobby-mag-stub didn't indicate that they actually published literature per se (like poetry, and short stories), but focused more on reviews and previews -- more journalistic oriented.

Hence my confusion as to where to put them. I'll lean toward the lit mags in the future. Dawynn (talk)

Thanks for your help on GCIB. It looks good. --Drswenson (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you had read what I wrote there, so FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Automatic_Underpopulated_.2F_Overpopulated_tags. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia a lifestyle magazine? Pedophilia is not a lifestyle, it is an affliction. According to the article, the journal's "...purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia". That don't sound like Country Living to me. Herostratus (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Pederasty. After reading the snippet a couple more times, I see that this was intended as a scholarly journal, so I'm content with recategorizing it. Dawynn (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, BC Report, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Report. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. A few minutes of your time with the TRINITY United Methodist Church (Garner, NC) page would be great! Thanks! Davidwehrle (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that this smacks of conflict of interest. Please review wikipedia's policies regarding conflict of interest. Dawynn (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for helping out on D&D related articles. :) The WikiProject has a lot of resources which you might find useful, even for various meta-purposes. :) BOZ (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Actually, I'm just trying to thoroughly sort the video game stubs. The D&D articles were just a bit of a side track while I was going through the RPG's. Hopefully, I sorted everything correctly. Dawynn (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! Keep up the good work. BOZ (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the deletion tag you had placed on this empty category to a category redirect, as is a better solution for a synonymous category title (particularly given that you never completed the CFD listing). Please use an edit summary in the future when you are making a change as drastic as listing a category for deletion to provide proper notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Linux For You, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux For You. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Category:Sun stubs category was created in response to the pre-existing {{Stub-sun}} template. You might want to touch bases with the person who created that. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn,

I am intrigued by your addition of stub tags to articles such as Aculeata, horntail and birch leafminer. Are there specific criteria that you are using to determine "stubbiness"? I agree that they each need considerable work, but I'm not sure I'd call any of them a stub. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned on the wikipedia option that indicates the article's quality with each article I review. All of these are indicated as "unassessed" articles. The only articles I will tag with a stub template are "stubs", "unassessed", or sometimes articles marked as "start" if its obvious that it doesn't deserve the start status. After visiting the discussion page of all three articles, I see that they had all been marked as "Start" quality, indicating that the Insect work group template somehow is not registering the quality back to Wikipedia correctly (or I would have seen a 'Start' indication at the top of the main page). Note that I have removed the stub tags from the three indicated articles.

Simply that they were indicated as unassessed was enough to qualify as stubs for my sorting purposes. Having no refrences on two of the articles, and no inline references in the third didn't help. Of course, other editors are free to disagree with my assessment, and make sure that the articles get assessed properly, hopefully in ways that Wikipedia understands. When articles are regraded, of course, all stub tags should be removed. Dawynn (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because those articles are using a slightly old-fashioned syntax; rather than using named parameters class= and importance=, they just give the parameters in order: {{WikiProject Insects|Start|Low}}. There will be quite a lot of these among the insects, unfortunately. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- œ^™ 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have been making a number of changes in the classification of various moth pages (e.g. here) without citing a source for your changes, and directly contradicting the sources already there. If there has indeed been a recent, generally agreed-upon reclassification of the genera in question, please cite appropriate sources for those changes you have already made, and in any future ones, or they will just get reverted. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a generally agreed-upon "good" source for taxonomy of insects? The Lep-index that everyone refers to seems to be outdated, since it does not recognize Erebidae, which seems to be a relatively newly recognized classification. Funet.fi also seems to be heavily referenced, but also way out of date. Bugguide.net seems to be more up-to-date, where it has data, but seems to be very incomplete, from what I can tell. Wikispecies seems to be a mix -- some articles are up-to-date with recent changes, some are out of date. It is internally inconsistent.

There are a vast number of articles that are not well classified. I'd like to help. I'd like to sort these correctly, but would like to know the "best" resource for finding missing information (like subfamilies, tribes, etc). Dawynn (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of poor categorization:

• Category:Lepidoptera - 132 articles. Most of these are specific to a genus -- so should be classified under the appropriate family. The only articles found here should be general to both butterflies and moths. Or at least very high-level articles specific to either butterflies or moths (like the two articles Butterfly and Moth).
• Category:Moths - 72 categories at the family level, but still 444 articles in the main category.
• Category:Arctiidae - 1596 articles in one category (for a family that has now been assigned under Erebidae, according to wikispecies). Surely these could be broken down a bit.
• Category:Geometridae - 2983 articles. These could be broken into subfamilies or lower.
• Category:Noctuidae - 16 subfamily categories, but still 4272 articles in the main category.
• Category:Tortricidae - 1290 articles in the main family category. Surely these could be broken down also.
• Category:Moth stubs - 1239 articles not classified by family. Of course, until we see the family and subfamilies properly defined, its hard to define what stub categories should exist.

Looking at Google Scholar, it doesn't appear that the proposed reclassification of several Noctuidae genera into Erebidae is anywhere near universally recognized, so mass updates to Wikipedia are probably premature at this time. But in any case, it is far more important that our articles agree with the sources they cite, than that they reflect the latest available research results, especially when those results are still in flux. WP:LEPID#Online recommends using LepIndex as the authoritative source for classification, so any deviations from its must be backed by especially high-quality sources. Wikispecies is entirely unreliable and should never take precedence over reputable scholarly sources. Hqb (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reference (indicating to use LepIndex as primary). I thought I had seen that somewhere in the project pages, then couldn't find it again when I looked for it. I have moved all the pages in Category:Erebidae to other locations, either fully undoing my changes, or moving to appropriate categories according to what I found in LepIndex. Dawynn (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Dawynn! I hope you have a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your tireless work on sorting all the Lepidoptera articles. Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For User:Dawynn who has contributed greatly to the sorting of Wikiproject Lepidoptera articles.

I came here to give you the very same barnstar but find that Ruigeroeland has already recognised your voluminous contributions to the WikiProject. I am sorry that I am unable to help you at the moment, but do keep up the good work. Your labour of love has not gone un-noticed. All the very best wishes to you. AshLin (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you both for this honor. I admit, biology is not my first interest, but I work with the stub sorting project, and several of these categories desperately needed sorting. The classification of some of these families seems to be a moving target, with much debate. By using the LepIndex as my main resource, hopefully I've helped more than hurt your project. Dawynn (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tagged the above category you may have created, as CSD C1 because it's seemingly empty.

If you do not want this category deleted, please populate it appropriately, or place an appropriate {{hangon}} on the category description page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, VGASAVE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGASAVE (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please see my comment on your CFD for Category:Palaephatoidea. Cgingold (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please create the article Pelodryadinae as you have been adding Template:Pelodryadinae-stub to articles? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn. First, my compliments on the hard work you are doing. I have one question though. On the page of the genus Targalla, you state that it is now considered a synonym of Phlegetonia. Where did you find this information? Because I cannot seem to find a source for that. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back. That indication came from the LepIndex card index. After reviewing again, I see that my claim there is suspect. Knowning what I know now, I would have seen that the card index does not properly indicate one way or another about even the validity of the genus. I have removed the synonym claim, and added a far better reference for the Natural History Museum site. This new reference has notes indicating that genus Targalla is valid. Dawynn (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it! And keep up the great work sorting all those animals. I am amazed you have the stomach for it. I would get tired of it within an hour..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you tried to tag Category:Anotheca for deletion WP:CfD has the instructions for doing this. the same may apply to Corythomantis, Itapotihyla, Nyctimantis, and Scarthyla. All have a page in them. Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I'm not sure what you're hinting at. I added the cfd template, gave my reasons as to why, and left the article in the category until it could be discussed. The tag was added on 9/8/10, its now only 9/12/10, and we're supposed to allow 7 days for discussion. Where am I dropping the ball? Dawynn (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's nothing major, since you listed them (I didn't follow up - or even look at the other cats) but the CfD notice should be substituted {{subst:Cfd}}, this creates a link to the discussion and puts it in the correct category. I am an occasional visitor to CfD, so I can't quote precedent, but there does tend to be exceptions made for small categories that are part of a scheme, although up-merging also occurs. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally they appear in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template if you don't subst them. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

On a different note I have crated a stub at Hylinae, if you can add anything to it, it would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your addition of {{popstub}} to this category again as there are no more EastEnders stubs. The majority of the pages that were stubs have been expanded or merged to lists of characters. AnemoneProjectors 12:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like its lost its need for a separate category. Typically, we try not to have stub categories with less than roughly 60 articles. Yes, as you can see from the Category:Underpopulated stub categories, such things exist. But they are discouraged, and efforts may be made to propose deletion for such categories. Dawynn (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be nominated for merging with Category:Soap opera character stubs. WikiProject EastEnders has another maintenance category, Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective, so we can still keep an eye on things. AnemoneProjectors 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your edit here, please? Did you even look at the page? The category is populated. I have reverted the edit pending an explanation of why exactly it needs this template. → ROUX ₪ 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly! Please review the proposal guidelines for the stub sorting project. In order to avoid over-categorization, we encourage a minimum of 60 articles per category. (800 is considered overpopulated -- we try to subcategorize before categories get this large) No offense intended, I have been adding the {{popstub}} template to all stub categories with less than 60 articles. In this case, with 55 articles in the category, if all the stubs have been identified, feel free to remove the {{popstub}} tag. Dawynn (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the templates. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you do realise Dawynn that I am one of the most active participants of the stub sorting proposals project right along with Waacstaats, Grutness and Ser Amantio? I haven't had time of late but if you actually look thorugh the archives... Just funny you were informing me about it when after Waacstaats and Grutness I've probably done the most proposals for stub sorting than anybody else..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for again fixing stub cats, the Côte d'Ivoire regions ones I linked to the already existing templates. I can probably pull hundreds more of the well-known cities and towns out of the main cat, but I'm only through the A's so far... --Kleopatra (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll check the ones already in regions, also, then. I think I saw one that was wrong, one of the island towns stubbed in Lacs Region, that's not. There are also a couple of town names that I think are wrong. Right now I'm doing a quick google check when I can guess the region, the town name, plus the region in quotes to verify. I have a couple of African geographic atlases that I work from, also. I'm also going to do Ghana and Congo, although neither has overlarge categories, that I see, and I know the Côte d'Ivoire geography better enough to pick off the big towns. Then I would like to move on to creating more about the rivers in Côte d'Ivoire, and it would be great to have someone following the articles.

If I can get the geo-coordinates, can you do the push-pin maps, at least for the CI articles? Thanks again for the help. You also helped out with my Algae templates, and I'm creating a lot more templates in microbes for another editor. I appreciate all the detail help I can get. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you working on Côte d'Ivoire. I started most of the stubs on the places we have so far. Rather poor I'm afraid but they had to be started somehow. Ita rather embarrasing the state of the department articles too.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Côte d'Ivoire templates and stubs were approved in May 2009. In the future, to find the discussion, you can check the templates for their creation date and search the archives just before that time. The templates were created in June 2009 and the stub proposal was in May, and it included approval for creation of the templates and categories large enough to be filled--I posted a link to it at your "Discoveries" post. The main category, Côte d'Ivoire geo stubs, was one of the categories listed as too large, and it appeared from glancing through it that sub-categories by region were warranted, and I have sufficient knowledge of, and references on, rural Côte d'Ivoire geography to do that. I created the sub-categories for the existing templates to clean out the main category, and I created the categories according to the existing template names. I will leave the Côte d'Ivoire geography stub sorting to you and find somewhere else to edit. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. (I should point out that I was about to propose those templates and categories myself, so it's no big deal. Anyways, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your helping with the task of stub sorting!) ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the sort keys on stub categories. These sort keys are placed intentionall, in order to ensure that the subcategories of an stub category will all be on the first page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why is it necessary that they be on the first page? I was finding it rather *unhandy* to not be able to see the categories appropriate to the letters that I was viewing. Properly adding a {{categorytree}} template will make it so that the category list is easily accessible from *every* page -- so all the categories can be seen no matter where you're at in the category list. I guess I don't really care, I just never saw much reason to go out of our way to fight the way that wikipedia naturally sorts categories. Dawynn (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handling SFD discussions where the result requires deletion of stub categories should be done in the following way:

1. Mar the discussion as closed, specifying the result.
2. Create any new categories/templates which need to be created.
3. Update any old templates (which need) to the new categorization, remove any sfd tags on templates being kept.
4. Should any templates need to be deleted, replace them with others, where appropriate.
5. Wait for the categories to br empty.
6. Delete the categories and templates which need to be deleted.

I see that you've been removing parts of the category pages (specificly the category parts), not officially closing the discussions, and making things harder to understand what's going on. Please also note that this process should be done by administrators, not by any one who happens to be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was performing my actions with full good intentions. Granted, I was not marking the discussions as closed, because my mind was thinking it was not closed until the categories / templates / etc are gone. But, I do not have the authority to delete categories and templates. So, I did everything else short of actually deleting the categories, then listing the categories in the "To be deleted" section. My understanding was, once it was in the "To be deleted" section, that it would shortly be deleted, once an administrator has time to get to it.

It had become clear that, left to the few administrators, these deletions can take a considerable amount of time. But, when I had the time, I could ease their work by removing all work up to the point of actually deleting the categories themselves. There was no disrespect intended.

At this point, what should I do? I can mark the discussions closed that are truly closed. But if this is something that should be left to the administrators, I don't want to be overstepping my bounds. Dawynn (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, is there anything I can do, as a project contributor, to help speed the process between when the deletions are posted to the deletion page, and when they actually get deleted, or at least no longer visible in the "good" category pages (say, by the removal of the category tags from categories marked for deletion)? My frustration came up because I would list something for deletion, and it would not get deleted in a reasonable time frame. The 7-day wait window was getting stretched interminably. And honestly, still is. Note the amount of categories in the "To be deleted" area that just are not being deleted. I'm willing to help where I can to help deletable categories get deleted - reasonably quickly. Dawynn (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there aren't enough admins at SFD, and those who are there (Grutness and I) are frequently participants in the discussions. The best I can think of doing is to request admin atttention by mentioning it at the Administrators' noticeboard every so often. If you have any ideas of how to convince other admins to join our, WikiProject, that could also help. I have also requested that the SFD categories be monitered at the old deletion discussio nreport - hopefully that will also help attract admins to these discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

One task you can definitely do right now is to go through all the categories on Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, and confirm that all the templates had been forwarded to the new category names. An admin has already decided to rename these, and this task involves no admin work (although a later step is to deelte the old categories, and that will involve admin work). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before I touch anything... Basically, all American, United States, British, and United Kingdom categories are under review. If I'm following the discussion right, we've chosen to follow the pattern set by the main non-stub categories. So, if the non-stub category uses American, the stub category should use American. If the non-stub category uses United States, we will too. Does that about cover it? Dawynn (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is - see the nomination list, and forward each old name to the new name. (Note that a few were striken out - leave those alone.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn - there's potential for problems with the naming of a couple of the new hotel cats, so I've proposed them for debate about renaming at WP:SFD... thought you should know. Grutness...wha? 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what you're doing? I see a large number of proposed template deletions at

• Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/February/8

and it seems they're unused because you've deliberately orphaned them. Seems you're making hundreds of edits to undo the stub-sorting by company:

• Intercontinental Hotel Bali
• Kerns Hotel

The convention seems to have been for stub-sorting by company and you're lumping them together as structures. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been fully approved for the transition here, with several discussions (do a find on "Hotel"). You bring up a couple excellent examples.

• Intercontinental Hotel Bali. This is a single structure found at a specific street address. However, it is owned by a company (Intercontinental Hotels Group) that actually owns a number of hotels. This is a great example as its clear the structure itself is not the full company, and the company is not an individual structure, but an organization that owns a number of structures.
• Kerns Hotel. This example does not indicate a parent company, but the article is focusing on a structure at a particular address. Thus, I have put it into the structure category.

Previously, there were a great many articles labeled as "company" that spoke of one particular location. Yet the wording on the templates and cateogires was talking about single hotels and resorts, not companies at all, which only muddied the waters, indicating that there was no clear purpose previously. Going forward, I've tried to make it clear that there is a distinction so that we can sort the structures as structures, and the companies as companies.

Note that the permcats also differentiate.

• Hotels by city, Hotels by country, etc. These are the individual structures, whether the sole hotel owned by a proprieter, or one of many owned by a company.
• Hospitality companies, Hotel chains, etc. These are the companies that own several hotels.

Yes, there is a Hotels category, but notice that it is all but empty (as it should be), with everything moved into the subcategories.

As far as the deletes go, I have already gone through all of the Hotel chains articles, weeding out all of the stubs I could find. But there just aren't very many hotel company articles out there, and the company articles are often big enough to justify at least a start class rating.

Dawynn (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the Intercontinental Hotel Bali; it's not that impressive; the whole south of the island is over-developed. Much nicer is the Maya;

• http://www.mayaubud.com/

Anyway, I see that most of this is User:Dr. Blofeld's work your going rather rough on. I mentioned the Maya because it's an award-winning design, but for most hotels, it's just cookie-cutter cement boxes by the millions, so it's *not* about the structure, it's about the chains, and it's about location, location, location. You say this is 'approved' but I only see a few comments, and about half are yours. Was this related to Blofeld's 'retirement'? A seized moment? I spoke with Jimbo about that, and he told that it's 'fixed'. So, Dr. B. is know for creating a huge number of articles, and I would expect him to create sufficient numbers to justify categorization at a fairly fine granularity. In Ubud, alone, there are easily a dozen major high-end hotels and hundreds of more modest accommodations. There are hundreds of high-end places on the island. My objection is that you've done like 500 edits in the last two days, regrading the entire landscape of what's in place. Hotels and such are not primarily 'structures' they're about accommodation and hospitality, and for the most part to cast them as 'structures' is rather crude. Dr. B. creates articles such as Amanjiwo, so please show some respect for the structure (pun noted) of things he's put in place. Regards, Jack Merridew 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I do not see a reason to revere one or another person's work when, quite honestly, the hotel stub scene was messed up. The templates and categories were labeled -company-, but frankly most of the articles labeled with these templates had nothing to do with entire companies. The Holiday Inn on 4th street here in my hometown is a far cry from the Holiday Inn company. And such was the case with most of these articles. They were tagged with the -company- template, but were really about one singule hotel in a specific location.

Despite being labeled as -company- templates, the majority of these were already upmerging to building and structure categories. Perhaps Blofeld, perhaps those after him had made a mess of things. Something needed to be done, and I chose to allow that there are company articles, but to differentiate between the companies, and the individual hotels.

And when it comes right down to it, although hotels may be about lodging, accomodations, service, whatever, an individual hotel is a building, or perhaps a set of buildings. Just as airports, hospitals, schools, bridges, lighthouses, etc. each have their own purpose that far outshines the actual building, when it comes to discussing a particular building at a particular location, these all are buildings, structures.

You've stated your points, and I've added my own to the deletion page. I'm ready to let the community speak its peace. Dawynn (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wrpg-videogame-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have these changes been discussed? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What changes are you referring to??? Dawynn (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one for example. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The UK -> British and US -> American changes. That bad boy was not my idea, I just helped in the transition. See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8. Look under United States film biography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have been moving this into by by continent parents. Hotels by continent is not a bu country grouping and is going to result it the removal of all of the these to the less commonly use by continent category which is not going to be very useful for most readers. I think it would be best for you to reconsider this action. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I disagree. For those of us who are not terribly familiar with geography, separating such articles into comprehensible pieces (like major continents) helps. However, this is not a battle I want to fight. Give me a bit of time to set things back. Dawynn (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, if you are geography challenged, leaving countries in a single category means you can find them. As a side note. There are some countries that present problems in the Middle East and around Asia as to what continent they go in. As an example, is Russia in Europe? Asia? Both? Or just in Eurasia? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but in such cases, I was of the understanding that Wikipedia tends to use the definition given by the United Nations. Is that accurate? At least that way there is some form of a governing body deciding continental divisions. Dawynn (talk)

Please can you stub sort the European hotels in correspondence to the new templates User:Dr. Blofeld/Hotels and considering creating others... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do.

• {{Europe-hotel-struct-stub}} is empty, with all articles that had been tagged now retagged with corresponding country templates.
• There are ongoing discussions here that will potentially change what the template tags will be named.

Granted, I have not gone through the permcats actively seeking more stub categories. But what have been identified for European hotel stub articles already are sorted, and the whole situation has become too much of a hot potato for me to be continue with tagging at this point. Dawynn (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why then did you create e.g Sweden-hotel-struct-stub or even propose them if you don't intend doing anything with it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read the discussions scattered about on the proposal and deletion pages. How things occurred:

1. There were already -hotel-company-stub tags, the text of which described individual hotels, rather than hotel companies.
2. I proposed the various -hotel-struct-stub tags, trying to delineate what is an individual hotel, and what is a hotel company. No objection at this point.
3. I started retagging the individual hotels with -hotel-struct-stub tags, clearing most of the articles out of the -hotel-company-stub tags.
4. I asked for the deletion of the majority of the -hotel-company-stub tags because they were now empty. Then the backlash started.
5. I tried to fill in the -hotel-company-stub templates as much as I possibly could, but just couldn't find the articles.
6. As far as Europe goes, I asked for, and built, tags for every country that has a category under Category:Hotels by country.
7. The backlash continued, badgering about why a distinction was made between -company- and -struct-. Well, honestly, company was established, but the majority of the articles were about structures, not companies.
8. Since I had already requested and built the European struct tags, I went ahead and emptied {{Europe-hotel-struct-stub}}, moving the various already-tagged articles out to the appropriate country templates. So countries that already had identified stub articles now have articles in the -struct- template.
9. That left a number of articles under the Category:Hotels by country category that just hadn't been identified as stubs yet. However, the pressure from the detractors continued, until I got tired of it, and stopped actively tagging.
10. At this point, there are unanswered questions as to which direction we want to go with the templates, and how they will eventually be named. Those that started the disagreements have not shown interest in seeing the discussion through to an end.

If we can finish the discussion and get some sort of agreement as to how the tags should be named, my interest may be renewed. Company doesn't accurately describe most of what was being tagged, but others are upset at calling them structures. When I proposed changing them to just -hotel-stub, no one cared any more about giving any further opinion one way or the other.

I personally don't see much of a need to tag articles now, when the template names will possibly change, depending on people's opinion. As I see it, there are outstanding questions that I posted on 2/19 that no one has answered. Feel free to leave your opinion on the deletion page under the various discussions. I really don't know what to do with the whole mess, since we have open-ended questions, with no indication as to the satisfaction level on my latest popsted proposals. Dawynn (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without going through *all* the hotels for Europe, I have attempted to find at least one article for every one of the European -hotel-struct-stub templates. There were three I could not find an article for, but all the rest should be at least partially populated. (Croatia, Estonia, and Portugal left unpopulated for now) Dawynn (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and tagged one Portugese hotel, although the article might classify as a 'start' class instead. I indicated that the Croatia and Estonia templates could be deleted with the {{db-author}} tag. Dawynn (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh --- I'm still re-learning after coming back from a very long break. I'm trying to create stub templates on the approved to-do list in Category:Kara Region geography stubs. I created the first three on the list, only to note they were in "Stub Categories Needing Attention" for misformed name. What's wrong with the name (on the approved list) and how do I fix that / prevent future mistakes?? Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This already got corrected. Please review what was done. The "Name" parameter in the template needs to match the name of the template. Dawynn (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. The last time I made a stub template, we did it like this: <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="stub"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: transparent;"><tr ><td >[[Image:Indostubmap.png|50px| ]]</td ><td >'' This [[Banten]] location article is a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]. You can [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|help]] Wikipedia by [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit}} expanding it]''.</td ></tr ></table ></div > My how times have changed... Aelfthrytha (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you placed the {{sfd-c}} template on the Category:College football coaches first appointed in the 2010s stubs. It does not appear that the rest of hte nomination was successfully completed, so I have attempted to do so. However, I do not have an understanding of the reasons behind the nomination, so you should go to the March 14 log and provide more detailed information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, adding the {{sfd-c}} to the category was correcting the oversight. It was first nominated on March 11, under Premature current decade categories.

Basically, the stub sorting group likes to keep its categories between about 60 - 800 articles. Less than 60, and we question whether a category is truly needed at this time. More than 800, and we look for ways to split the category. We generally have no problem with templates for smaller groupings, but the templates will then upmerge to a larger parent category, until we get about 60 articles tagged with that template. Also, for both categories and templates, we ask that a proposal be presented before building the template or category. This is all documented in the links found in the {{WPSS-cat}} template that's added to every stub sorting category. Dawynn (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making changes in the stub as the issue is still open for discussion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#March 14.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? True, no administrators have come and closed the discussion, but administrator activity on the page is very sparse. Also, see the notes at the top of the deletion discussion page. It indicates to allow 7 days for discussion. The last posting was March 24, but that was collaboration discussions of people trying to find more articles. The last real posting talking about whether the category should be kept or not was on March 20. That makes about 2 weeks since anyone has contributed to the discussion. And yet there are still only 15 articles, despite all the searches for more articles.

I have not asked for deleting the template. It is still available, and still has all the identified articles. Feel free to keep filling it. Once it reaches a usable size, feel free to nominate a category for it. Dawynn (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that the discussion is still open because... well... the discussion is still open. Call me crazy, I guess.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reassessed a bunch of Indiana state highways, changing the assessments for WP:USRD as well. Our assessment scheme works a little differently than many other projects, and you dropped the assessments from start-class to stub-class on many of them. We look to see how many of the "big three" sections (route description, history, junction list/major intersections) are present. If there are none or one of the sections present, it's stub-class. If there are two sections present, it's start-class. All three makes it C-class, and if the sections are "substantially complete" and well referenced, then it's B-class. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, the USRD project uses the WP:1.0 Assessment Criteria. In fact, on your own Assessment Dept page, the definition of a stub begins by following the WP Assessment Criteria:

"The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible."

I'm sorry, even if you have "the big three" section headers, but only a couple sentences under each section, you have "a very short article". Every one of the articles that I marked was, visibly, very short. Yes, they may have had the headers, but still not substantial enough information to honestly qualify for a start class article. Please use the wikipedia assessment classifications sensibly.

Dawynn (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm applying the system that's been used on 10,000 other USRD articles. The relevant guideline is summarized here which says, "Start: Has two of the 'big three' sections." and "Stub: Has none or one of the 'big three' sections." Like I said, our project uses assessments differently, if you wish to change how USRD assesses the articles, feel free to post at WT:USRD/A. Imzadi 1979 → 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that many of the articles that were reassessed were on short highways (<5 miles) so there won't necessarily be a lot to say in each article. We don't require "complete" sections until working on the distinction between C-class and B-class. Like I said, we apply the lower levels a bit differently than other projects, and we have for years. Imzadi 1979 → 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That just brings up a much larger, more important question, which I had anticipated after viewing several of the articles. Honestly, if a road doesn't even stretch for 5 miles, is it worth putting in an encyclopedia? That is, if there's not enough to say about the road that could even lift it out of an honest stub assessment, why post it on wikipedia? Dawynn (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments about the gist of the first part of this discussion have been moved to the WPRD talk page. Please post further interaction there for all to read. Dawynn (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your posting will have much of your desired impact. Remember too, that while similarly named, Stub-Class and Stub status are separate concepts. The former is a quality assessment, and the latter is a length assessment. As for the length of the road, that's a bit irrelevant as well: if a state government goes to the trouble to include it in the state's highway system rather than relegate it to the counties or cities for maintenance, there's usually a good reason. Most of those articles can be expanded by including the missing history of the road (when was it designated? was it ever rerouted? was it part of another highway before?) and even adding data on traffic counts. The RD sections can be expanded with additional landmarks or content on the landscapes. Those are details that affect how complete the article is for the higher classifications. Imzadi 1979 → 19:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Young Greens of Sweden‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the article Inspector America that I created. My wikipedia coding skills aren't superb, so I appreciate the effort to neaten up the page. --CPAScott (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I help where I can. Dawynn (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate pages for deletion at any deletion process (including at Stub types for Deletion), please don't take actions which "set facts on the ground" in preparation for deletion - such as emptying categories, retargetting templates which populate categories (such as here) and orphaning templates (such as here). In fact, even if you're not the nominator, you should usually leave these actions for the admin who closes the discussion. (Discussions should almost NEVER be closed by non-admins; the major exceptions are blatant speedy keep cases (including withdrawn nominations) and cases where an admin has already deleted the page(s) and appears to have forgotten to formally close the case.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll stop helping. However, I must add that the example that you gave about orphaning templates was excessively poor. That was a case where we had a properly formatted template that followed the example set by numerous similar templates and that was valid for the article. And we had a template that was invalid in every sense, and did not follow any of the set standards, or the pattern of the similar templates. It was just simply proper that I put the correct, valid, standard template on the page, and remove the invalid, unapproved, wrong template. Dawynn (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't the "correct" tag, the point is that as long as the discussion is open, you need to let potential voters (and the closing admin) the ability to determine the current situation. If you amoty a category with 40 stubs, and then someone finds 22 more, then you have affected the results of any subsequent checks by other users. The user who did this may not understand stub tags, and may have populated the category directly; to check later on how many of these 22 are also from among the 40 makes things much harder. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, in general, what you're saying. But in this case, it did not make sense.

Based on the case you cite, what you're saying is that we should just allow people to willy-nilly make templates that do not follow the rules of the stub sorting project, have not been approved by the stub-sorting project, and that, if allowed to continue to exist, would replace existing approved templates that *do* follow the rules of the stub sorting project. Should I have also changed the dozen or so articles using the valid template over to the new invalid template for the sake of one article using the bad template?

In this case, someone made an invalidly formatted stub tag, when a properly formatted tag was available and in use. The newly created tag had spaces in the name of the tag -- something we do not allow with stub tags. Ideally, there should have been an option for a speedy deletion of the wrong tag, but such an option is not available to the stub community. I cannot see the offense in changing one article to use the proper stub tag when one is available, especially when the good tag is used on a dozen articles, and the new bad tag is only used on one article.

Granted, this may have been a case where I should have changed the category to use the correct template, at least until we decided whether to remove the category. But there was no question at all on the template. Someone had created a badly formed template, when a new template was not even necessary. Dawynn (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I did with the Sri Lankan football biography stubs was try to fill the category. But as I started reviewing the list of articles that could be put in this category, I quickly discovered most of these were tagged -- with a different and validly formatted tag! It only seemed reasonable to tag the one remaining article with the proper tag, and strip off the new, unnecessary tag.

Now, I had no problem with the name of the category (size, yes, but not the name). And I would have supported keeping the category, but the articles just weren't there. The permcat only has 11 articles. Here, I had to make a judgment call. Should I leave the category as is? Or "fill it" by changing it to use the valid template. That would mean changing the template in a way that would probably need to be reverted a mere week later.

Feel free to fault me for not tying the category to its true template ({{SriLanka-footy-bio-stub}}). But its ridiculous to ask any editor not to correct clear and obvious mistakes in Wikipedia. Dawynn (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn. I noticed you have started working on Crambinae articles as well. If you do, could you please use http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/ as a source? This is an updated taxonomy of the whole family. The genereric names index you are using is great, but it is outdated so please dont use it to put articles in cats for this family (it is fine to use if no other source is available, but in this case, it is better to use http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/)! Furthermore, I have a request: if you do help with the crambidae genera, could you please also add all species and genus synonyms in the article? If not, would you please leave them alone right now? I am updating the whole family and it is harder to see which still need work if they have already been put in categories. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notice. Since you are actively working on this, I will leave the family alone. Dawynn (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! And keep up the good work with the categories. When starting out on wikipedia, I didnt really bother about Cats, but I am since some time so I hope I will not add to your work-load to much anymore.. :) By the way, another family which is in need of categorisation is the Torticidae. I have made all genus level articles about 1,5 years ago. If you decide to work on that family in the future, please note that there is also a special site for that family. It is best to work from the Tribe and Subfamily pages on wikipedia if you decide to work on that family. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to review / revert my changes on the following Crambidae articles. This should be all the articles that I touched today for that family:

1. Aboetheta
2. Capparidia
3. Elusia
4. Ismene (moth)
5. Lativalva
6. Leptosophista
7. Schacontia
8. Styphlolepis
9. Surattha
10. Thyridopsis

Dawynn (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The family is cleared. All synonyms have been turned into redirects, all genera are in subfamily or tribe categories and all species have been added to the genera. I am now moving on to the Pyralidae, which are also featured on that site. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you marked several articles (ISO/IEC 8859-2, ISO/IEC 8859-3, ISO/IEC 8859-4, et al) as stubs. I did not undo your edits, but by what criteria are you assessing these articles as stubs? They look mostly complete to me, i.e., they list the language coverage and provide the complete character code chart. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at these examples that I did not tag: ISO/IEC 8859-1, ISO/IEC 8859-15.

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a reference book. If this were a reference book for programmers, the codepage itself would be nearly sufficient. As an encyclopedia, the codepage seems more like a single graphic -- important, but more weight is placed on telling about the character encoding scheme. And on the pages that I tagged, the text itself was, in my opinion, stub-length. Others' opinions may differ. Dawynn (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Velika_Njiva--Palapa (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear friend. I agree with you about what you said. but I have plan to complete these categories in a Month. I just made those for in first step to sorting Iranian writing articles that spread through the Wikipedia. Now, what would I do after this nomination for deletion? Is it possible to stop deletion?P. Pajouhesh (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in Crambidae you made a few of the redlinks on that page redirect to the page. This should never be done, as per WP:R#Self-redirects.

(In this case, if we had the subfamilies as sections on the main page, it is OK to make them redirect to the specific section, but even then it may be wise to avoid REDIRECT and use a piped link like "[[#Cybalomiinae|Cybalomiinae]]")

Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn. Can you "redesign" a little this list? List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo sports games In the section "Other / Unspecified" there are four Sumo games, 1 horse game (Take Yutaka G1 Memory)... and so on. Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Even moved a couple out that seemed to be somewhat pong-related. Dawynn (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, looks better now. :) Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. btw, I think you should remove Waku Waku Ski Wonder Spur from List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo vehicle simulation games (Unclassified), and put it on the List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo sports games (Skiing and Snowboarding)? --Hydao (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the lists have several flaws. I guess it's because of GameFAQs... I registered on the site a few months ago only to correct all those errors, sigh. It's "painful" seeing a game that I like(d) (or simply played) with wrong info.

Few days ago I had to include this game Nakajima Satoru F-1 Hero '94 on the [[List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo vehicle simulation games. Anyway if I spot more errors or gaps, I'll add/correct it by myself, or notify you. Cheers. --Hydao (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dude, this game Kidoukeisatsu Patlabor is not a platform game: List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo platform games (Unclassified). Maybe Action-RPG.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/snes/kidou-keisatsu-patlabor

http://www.super-famicom.jp/data/ki/patorei.html

Youtube japanese videos: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E6%A9%9F%E5%8B%95%E8%AD%A6%E5%AF%9F%E3%83%91%E3%83%88%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC+sfc&aq=f

--Hydao (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my interest in the SNES project has greatly declined. I check in now and then, but I'm no longer actively pursuing this. Please feel free to edit. Dawynn (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you "learned" something, now you know that this game/anime exist, so it's not that bad. Ok, I will edit it, I sent you the message because I didn't want to fu*k up the page.--Hydao (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn - long after the nomination should have closed, I've made a further suggestion which I've just thought of to the changeover of retail stub at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/June/23#Commerce-related renames. By the way, I've asked Ser Amantio whether he can run AWB over this to get the huge mass of articles changed over to the new stub name, so that this can finally be closed. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For you excellent work in identifying needed stub templates and categories. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn I see that you have replaced Turkey geo stub with Province geo stub in tens of stub articles. These articles are about villages or small towns. Administratevly they are a part of a district which in turn is a part of a province of Turkey. So they may be classified according to the country or a province or a district. Country stub seems to be the best choice. So please don't start an edit war and leave them in Turkey geo stub. Cheers... Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the country category had grown to double size, it was acknowledged that a finer categorization was needed. Such was proposed, and approved, down to the province level. And, at the rate that these communities are being added, categorization will need to be down to province, if not district. And since most of these are already separated into province permanent categories, why not separate likewise for the stubs?

Honestly -- it is a very large task, I'm quite willing to let others sort, if they will. But Category:Turkey geography stubs is still over double the maximum size for stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that you're planning to create 81 new stub templates. Good luck. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, stub templates are already in place. They were already built when you started this conversation. Dawynn (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. Since you created those lists of games and stuff... lemme ask you this: Wanna help "me" improving this page? List of Sharp X68000 games (looks like sh*t, I only added the games when I actually played it.) If I do it alone, it will take months but if someone help "me", it will be totally different.

I've been adding the games + covers on GameFAQs.

• List: http://www.gamefaqs.com/x68000/list-999?dist=1
• This is probably the best Japanese source (there are 9 pages so far I guess): http://www20.atpages.jp/tkhr000/x68softlist/x68soft1.htm

Many of these Sharp titles are ports from SNES and etcs games, or vice-versa, and guess what, the Sharp versions are way better in many cases. A simple list, with the game's title, japanese name, date of release and genre. Well, if you are "interested" say me something and we can start soon, if not, just ignore this message. :]

P.S. A blog from an Italian guy: http://www.illusionware.it/x68000.htm

--Hydao (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks a lot for populating the Category:Peshawar stubs. Your help is much appreciated. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Please double-check my work and make any necessary corrections. I've been trying to populate the smaller stub categories -- even if I'm unfamiliar with the subject. Dawynn (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's correctly categorized and spot on. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you added a stub tag to Michael Brown (British politician). The article is already eight paragraphs long, over 400 words and contains five references. Given that a stub is defined as "an article containing only a few sentences of text which [...] is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject," I've removed the stub tag. I thought I'd let you know. --Lincolnite (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Stub Sorting for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you edited some stub templates for the math stub discussion, but the discussion itself isn't closed. Would you mind closing it? Then I wouldn't have to keep it on my watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody closes the discussion in a day or so, I am going to undo the changes that you made to the math stub templates, since nothing should be changed until the discussion is formally closed. This is just procedural; when the discussion does get closed, if the closing statement agrees with the changes, they can always be re-done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm not an admin. And, unfortunately, the admins do not seem to visit the stub deletion page much, as can be seen by the number of discussions that have passed their due date, but still have not closed. Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The