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!

Stubs Taiko no Tatsujin Wii Classic Text Adventure Masterpieces of Infocom Star Soldier (video game) Iridion II Danny Sullivan's Indy Heat Pesaro Angels Feltiella acarisuga Starship Hector Tigrioides Bactrocera tryoni Agrotis Mega Man III (DOS) Atomic coherence Aviation Museum of Kentucky Senzo Meyiwa Final Soldier Warren Spink Marshall Soper Bactrocera dorsalis

Cleanup Rockman EXE Operate Shooting Star Moody House List of Mega Man Star Force characters Merge List of cyber attack threat trends White-ground alabastrum Jumbo jet Add Sources Mega Man Battle Network (video game) 1986 US Open (tennis) Mega Man Battle Network 2 Wikify Aircam Surrogacy Street Fighter (comic book) Expand Secret of Mana Mega Man Battle Network 4 Virgo-centric flow

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]

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 Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven Talk 07:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! A real milestone! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn. I have a request: could you make a stub template for the family Heliozelidae? We had the family listed under the Incurvarioidea superfamily. But a recent source suggests this is incorrect. According to this source, the superfamily should be Adeloidea, but we dont have an article on that superfamily yet. I have to do some research to clarify the status of Adeloidea vs. Incurvarioidea, but it would resolve some errors if we could tag Heliozelidae species with their own stub template, instead of the superfamily template. The family consists of 123 species (only a small portion have articles on wikipedia yet though). Cheers and thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request made. Please review February proposals. Dawynn (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been creating articles on the Iranian villages. I noticed that you've been active in stubsorting. If it would help; I would create them with the county already. Could you propose creation of the templates (we'll worry about cat's later, when they are populated), to save the massive rework on 60,000 more articles to come. A list of the counties can be found at Category:Counties_of_Iran. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually, you can axe Qom County from the list of template requests as it's coextensive with Qom Province. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request made. Please review February proposals. Dawynn (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Shitai County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xianyu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cybersoft (magazine) 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/Cybersoft (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As article creator, maybe you're able to offer some info as to why this magazine may be notable. I guess it's probably from the '80s, so there could be a lack of online documentation. I'm going to relist it for another week. -- Trevj (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't be much help here. I didn't create the original text, I just split an article talking about two unrelated topics. A review of the history of the old Cybersoft Technologies article shows my split on March 20, 2010, at 10:18, and that Erzengel actually contributed the information about the magazine back in June 2006. Dawynn (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I couldn't tell that from the edit summaries but with your help I've found that stuff now.[1][2]. I've notified Erzengel too. -- Trevj (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, I've just noticed that s/he's not here! Oh well, I'll do a little more detective work next time! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on this list I got as far as entry 100, although there were some that puzzled me (entries 41-48 for example). I didn't do entries 2 & 3 because I did them last month, and got reverted by Koavf (talk · contribs). More notes at User talk:MZMcBride#Please repair broken stub report.

Now that you're working on these too, shall I skip on to page 2 (801 up)? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- Actually, knowning that, I'll step back and let you work. Thanks for picking this up! Dawynn (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for all your hard work on sorting out all the Carabidae stubs I made into their own subfamily stubs. It is immensely appreciated! NielsenGW (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn, I'm not 100% sure, but I think some fishing games are missing? I just added 2 titles, List of River King video games, those 2 titles I added are already here though: List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo role-playing games. --Hydao (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page you point to indicates that this series is not so much a fishing game, as it is a fishing-themed role-playing game. As such, look for them on the role playing page. Dawynn (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your nomination of Category:Buddhist temple stubs to CFD. I attempted to format the nomination but was not sure to where you wished to propose that the category be upmerged: to Category:Buddhism stubs, Category:Buddhist monastery stubs and/or Category:Religious building and structure stubs. I'd be grateful if you could offer clarification on this point. Thanks, -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action. -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dawynn, I've notice you added

to "Evita The Documentary". However, the film holds copyright in the US and was produced in the US by an American Studio. Would you please reconsider the tag as an Argentine flick. Kind Regards, SabonarolaSabonarola (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn, thanks for your help in tagging Heidekreis stub articles. It would be great if you could add an explanatory comment. I have "autocomplete" set, so as soon as I begin to type "stub tag added" or whatever, it completes it for me to save time. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Vladimir Putin quotes is presently a soft-redirect to Wikiquote, but I notice from the history that back in July you retargeted this to Vladimir Putin but self-reverted a minute later without any obvious comments that I've found. The future of redirect is currently being discussed at RfD and so you may wish to share any opinions you have there - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 23#Vladimir Putin quotes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating crustacean categories without prior discussing. The categorisation hierarchy is meant to be useful, and that often means keeping larger categories rather than subdividing things as far as possible. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does parallelism not come into play? It didn't make sense to classify by class, but refuse to have a category for the largest of the classes (Malacostraca). We have a category for superclass Syncarida, but refuse to create categories for other superclasses. I was just trying to restore proper parallelism. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malacostraca is a borderline case, which is why I haven't undone it, but things like Cephalocarida (only one member, so entirely useless as a category) and Eucarida are clear-cut. They simply add an extra click for anyone searching through the category hierarchy, without adding any significant functionality. I'm also not convinced that adding additional stub categories is really helpful. Has anyone been unable to find an article to expand because the categories were too big (c. 500)? I suspect not. In all these cases, discussing things at the project's talk page is to be recommended, and could prevent wasted effort on everyone's part. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the stub categories. Stub categories were brought up and speedy-approved on the stub category site. (Which is how I learned about the sorting discrepancies in the main categories) They had passed the minimum stub-category article count (60). I'm satisified with the main category sorting for now. (Although, I will be proposing that a couple of the stub templates be resurrected) Dawynn (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to what end? What is the advantage of this effort? After dozens of edits switching between stub templates and erecting categories in an increasingly complex hierarchy, the stub articles themselves are no more likely to be expanded than they were before. Which templates do you propose to "resurrect"? {{Ostracod-stub}} is an obviously bad idea. There are only 36 articles about ostracods in total, so even if all were stubs, there would not be enough; in fact, there are only 30. {{Maxillopoda-stub}} is similarly ill-advised; only 41 articles would be members. This sort of thing is best done with the approval and assistance of the relevant wikiprojects, who are the ones who will have to maintain the systems after all. If nothing else, they should be informed, but much, much better is to involve them in the preparation, so that bad ideas can be nipped in the bud. Experience shows that many proposals do not deserve to be put into action. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to contribute to the discussion. Dawynn (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. And I encourage you not to waste everyone's time with such frivolous proposals in future. You should have known from my previous comments that these proposed new stub categories would be unhelpful. In fact, you should have even known without my comments. You continue to avoid contacting any Wikiprojects about changes to articles and categories that affect them directly. You have not provided a single reason why the new stub types should be created and used. All this is very troubling behaviour, and I hope you will learn a lesson from this. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that while removing some of the categories I created with only 5 articles, you kept Category:Syncarida‎ and Category:Tanaidacea‎, both of which are no larger. How odd. Dawynn (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to requests to upmerge those categories. However, each proposal must stand on its own merits; Wikipedia does not recognise precedent in such cases. The presence of inadvisable categories doesn't make others any more useful. Most of the categories you were creating were intermediate in rank, and were just creating complexity without improving anything. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't adhere neutral point of view.There are few issues.---zeeyanketu <sup>talk to me</sup> 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After two changes, all I did was remove the stub tag. The article has enough content that it no longer classifies as a stub. As to the content itself, please notify the appropriate editors. Dawynn (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a little over my head in Lepidoptera. Do you think you could help me out with an issue I'm having with Phyllonorycter aberrans? I found that the original name for the species by Annette Braun, the binomial authority, was LITHOCOLLETIS aberrans. Template:Taxobox is a little confusing, but it seems to me that LITHOCOLLETIS aberrans should be listed as the binomial name, with Phyllonorycter aberrans as a junior synonym. Is this the protocol? --Snorkelman 03:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorkelman (talk • contribs)

According to Lepindex, Phyllonorycter is the current, accepted genus. Lithocolletis was the original genus, but it is now a junior objective synonym of Phyllonorycter. Dawynn (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - on review I can see how I got confused. ICZN 67B says:

Recommendation 67B. Citation of type species. The name of a type species should be cited by its original binomen. If the name of the type species is, or is currently treated as, an invalid name, authors may also cite its valid synonym.

So the original name rule doesn't apply here. I'll get the hang of it sooner or later.--Snorkelman 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorkelman (talk • contribs)

Hi Dawynn. Please, be so kind and have a look at this proposal. Thank you! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawynn. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I have undone a series of edits you made to pages named like "Lists of XXX", in which you marked them as disambiguation pages. You may want to review the WP:CONCEPTDAB section of the disambiguation guideline. In a nutshell, a list of lists about related topics is not a disambiguation page, it is just a list. A disambiguation page is used when there are different topics that could be searched for using the same title, not when there are multiple lists about the same topic. I hope this clears it up, although I realize the distinction is sometimes quite subtle. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn! Could you please clarify why you put a stub template on ATCvet code QD51‎? It's a list, not a stub; and as this ATCvet group is empty, there's nothing to add. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. I am presenting this proposal for new Bible-related stub categories. What do you think? Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've modified your stub templating at Randhawa, using {{india-stub}} rather than {{hinduism-stub}}. I've no idea whether Hinduism is the major religion of this particular clan of the Jat people but I do know that there are many Indic communities that do not follow the tenets of Hinduism, eg: the Muslim Jats. Using the India template seems safer to me, although an equivalent for Pakistan might also apply. I chose not to use Pakistan because that Wikiproject is less active and because Pakistan was until recent years a part of India anyway. Hope this makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that DEFAULTSORT is a magic word, not a template, and uses a colon, not a pipe. For example: {{DEFAULTSORT:Man Behind the Gun}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Man Behind the Gun}} — Paul A (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit like this one is not "stub-sorting" as you say in your edit summary: it's assigning a stub tag and thus creating a job of stub-sorting to be done. If you are tagging a mass of similar stubs as you've done here, it would be helpful to add the sorted stub tags yourself instead of just increasing the size of Category:Stubs. I reckon the Norwegian years take {{year-stub}} and {{Norway-hist-stub}}. PamD 18:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it was a judgment call. I took the weekly Untagged stubs report and quickly used autowikibrowser to at least tag them with {{stub}}. Difference? The report will go largely ignored. But, as was shown last week, a dump into the main stub category will be reviewed by many and cleared out fairly quickly. Dawynn (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised it was more than just the years. But please don't use such an inaccurate edit summary. PamD 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can please I ask why you are adding stub tags to aircraft articles that have been previously assessed as start class? If you consider the articles to be stubs then the talk page assessment should be lowered, the articles that were recently flagged on my watchlist all meet the start class criteria. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is so very little actual descriptive text in the articles. Because they are what is generally considered to be about stub length. Dawynn (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. Hope you are doing fine. I have just made this proposal: a stub category for philatelists. What do you say? Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. I see the Harz-Mountain-geo-stub and category are being deleted. As the author I am disappointed that I was not contacted in the normal way about this proposal. Actually, unless there is a wiki rule that geo-stubs may only be linked to admin areas, I don't quite follow the logic for deletion either. For those working on Harz Mountain-related articles, it is very useful to be able to identify the stubs and improve them. Is there any chance of being able to revisit this decision? Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with any stub proposal, such a request should start at the beginning. Any request for a new stub template or category should first start at the stub proposal page. This category was never proposed. Typically we build geographical stub templates only on established politicial divisions. If you feel that there is still a reason to have this template and category, please make a proposal and allow for community discussion. Dawynn (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. I am working on stub sorting and I have placed a proposal related to Eastern Catholicism. Would you be so kind and write your opinion on it here? Thank you! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dawynn. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan geography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Armbrust <sup>The Homunculus</sup> 08:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn, say, if you toss stub tags, would you also kindly check the article talk page and similarly upgrade any wikiproject assessments from "stub" to "start" class too? And please don't be too hasty to toss stub tags, those often indicate articles that are the most need of help -- even 2-3 paragraphs and a see also don't really make some articles "start" class, though I acknowledge there is a judgement call there. But mostly, just a plea to also upgrade assessments if you toss the tag... thanks Montanabw<sup>(talk)</sup> 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): Interesting to see this: I've just explained on another user's talk page that an article might be assessed by a project as "stub-class" but not be a stub in the sense described at WP:STUB! (We're disagreeing on whether Ken Swofford and Hunt Stromberg are stubs.) And I'd think that wikiproject assessments should only be made by members of that wikiproject, who are familiar with the criteria specific to that project. I would not recommend a general stub-sorter to meddle with the assessments made by a wikiproject. PamD 22:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, even stub-sorting is a judgement call per User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs. So I'd say if the wikiproject says it's a stub, that should be respected on both tabs. That said, the last time I had a "do what the wikiproject has decided" argument, I got jumped on for not following general policy, with a whine that wikiprojects have to follow all the rules too! (grin). So, IMHO, if the wikigods decree an article isn't a stub, then please upgrade the assessment, as we may not really have any say over stub-land (unlike the higher classifications). Montanabw<sup>(talk)</sup> 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been scolded in the past for changing the talk page from a grade above "stub" back to "stub" when the article was IMHO very much still a stub. But I've never been scolded for bumping an article that I deemed started from "stub" up to "start" class. I will adjust my editing techniques. Dawynn (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn! Just dropping you a note to let you know that {{wikify}} has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates, such as {{underlinked}}. Since the release version of AWB is still automatically adding {{wikify}}, I suggest you install the latest SVN snapshot instead, which has a lot of fixes in it. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that fairly quickly. Normally I don't let AWB auto-tag things, but I was using it on a new computer, and didn't quite have the settings the way I prefer. My apologies. Dawynn (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been going around adding {{name-stub}} to dab pages. STOP THAT. There is nothing else to say besides this is an incomplete list of people who bear a certain name.

If you want to be helpful, you can add {{incomplete list}} or Category:disambiguation pages, but kindly stop adding such a WP:POINTy template to pages where it is completely unhelpful. — LlywelynII 09:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If they truly are dab pages, they should bear a {{disambiguation}}, perhaps with a parameter to indicate the type of thing tht is dabbed: {{disambiguation|human name}} {{disambiguation|given name}} or {{disambiguation|surname}} These will put the page into Category:disambiguation pages possibly also one of its subcats. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)2 A dab page is not a name page; a name page is not a dab page. If a page has information about the name, with or without a list of bearers of the name, it is a name page (but probably either {{given-name-stub}} or {{surname-stub}}). If it has a list of holders of the name, with or without other uses of the word, it is a dab page. Please do not add a page directly to Category: Disambiguation pages: add the {{dab}} or {{hndis}} template, as these create a useful message on screen as well as the category. You could add {{incomplete list}} to a name page, but not to a dab page. PamD 15:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have reverted your recent edit. Skip distance term is not only related to radio waves , but also other transmission signals. Making it a radio related topic confines its field. As in my opinion 'radio' & 'radio waves' are separate fields and doesn't convey the same meaning. :) --Deepon (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. I have a proposal for the {{Mass media stub header}} that you created months ago (which is very useful).

I see that there are the are biography stub templates associated to it, such as {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-tv-bio-stub|{{{country}}}-tv-bio-stub]]}}, {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-radio-bio-stub|{{{country}}}-radio-bio-stub]]}}, {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-film-bio-stub|{{{country}}}-film-bio-stub]]}}, {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-film-director-stub|{{{country}}}-film-director-stub]]}}, {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-film-producer-stub|{{{country}}}-film-producer-stub]]}}, and {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-journalist-stub|{{{country}}}-journalist-stub]]}}. So far, so good. But... what if we add as well the biography stub templates {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-tv-actor-stub|{{{country}}}-tv-actor-stub]]}} and {{[[Template:{{{country}}}-film-actor-stub|{{{country}}}-film-actor-stub]]}}? After all, they refer to media biographies as well.

Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dawynn (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you restored {{popstub}} to categories that have already been populated as much as they can be? I'm referring specifically to Category:Singleton Shire geography stubs, Category:Port Stephens Council geography stubs, Category:Newcastle, New South Wales geography stubs, Category:Maitland geography stubs and Category:Great Lakes Council geography stubs, all of which were populated fully when I created these categories. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as noted in the documentation for Wikipedia:WPSS, stub categories shouldn't be less than 60 articles. I give some leeway on this, but once a month I review which categories are undersized, and tag all that are less than 50 articles with {{popstub}}. Dawynn (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging is pointless for these categories. The aim is to get these categories down to zero articles, not to create stub articles just to populate the categories. I don't know why WPSS specfies 60 articles, the general rule of thumb is 4-5 and there are plenty of smaller categories in existence. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales. The first part pretty well explains the rationale for the expected size of stub categories.

I agree that the stub sorting project is not out to encourage building stubs just to fill categories. But we do try to build reasonably sized categories for the stubs that exist, and those that continue to be created. Dawynn (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty is a size that is incongruous with general category practice. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales says, stub categories are for editors, and editors maintaining these articles need to be able to easily identify related articles, which is impossible when you have stubs for 11 different areas all lumped in together. The difficulty in identifying related articles is why the parent category was split in the first place. "One of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor so small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories" is at odds with with the requirement to easily to easily hunt down closely related articles. Large categories are fine if all you want to do is browse, but if you're an editor trying to identify articles in a specific area that require expansion, large categories are unhelpful. That's why we generally try to reduce category sizes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" works. And you can easily pull up "what links here" for a particular template. We have no restrictions on the size allowed for building a new template (although we would prefer that templates be approved before being built). So, its not unwieldy for a category to contain multiple templates as the templates are being used.

As for your claim that there are so many categories with less than 5 articles, please see here Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub type sizes. While this is an imperfect list, because of issues related to searching the wikipedia database, it is the best resource we have for the size of stub categories. Out of over 11,000 stub categories, it only lists 50 with less than 20 articles and no sub-categories. 17 are listed as having less than 5 articles and no subcats. Of these, 7 were false positives to begin with. 3 have since been filled with more than 60 articles. Which leaves just 7 stub categories with less than 5 articles. It takes time and volunteers to determine whether these can be filled, or if they should be deleted. Dawynn (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What links here" is a messy way of having to search for articles because what links here may include articles, talk page discussions, user pages and so on. Restricting category sizes to 60+ detracts from the category's usefulness to editors, because you can't use the category to search for articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, these are the guidelines established, not by me, but by Wikiproject:Stub Sorting. Please take your concerns to the wikiproject talk page. Dawynn (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are just that, they're not policy. Regardless of what WPSS decrees, my original point stands. There's no point tagging categories with {{popstub}} if there are no more articles to add. Doing so just because a category doesn't meet an arbitrary threshold doesn't really serve any purpose. Categories that should be tagged are categories that are missing articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. They are no longer tagged for further populating. Instead, I've tagged these stub categories for deletion because they do not meet the guidelines of the WikiProject under which they fall. Again, any further disagreements with these guidelines should be taken up with the project community. Dawynn (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're busy trying to delete an Iran geography stubs. If you don't want them; I'll just create all the village articles with iran-stub and let you sort them out. I'm trying to be helpful and you're trying to make my editing more difficult. You're not bettering the encyclopedia - you're embittering me and you can sort out the stubs since you don't appreciate that I would have done so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't looking to offend, just trying to clear a backlog of supersmall stub categories. Just to help avoid confusion in the future, you could build the templates first, and wait to build the categories until at least 60 articles use the template. Dawynn (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for withdrawing the nomination. Things in Kerman are taking longer than anticipated. Note Category:Jiroft County geography stubs for example, 650 entries and Category:Baft County geography stubs with 500+ and another county with 400+...lots of populated places in Kerman Province - more than in any other Iranian province by almost 1000 over Sistan and Baluchestan province.... fun fun fun.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making Kilane a stub. :)

Josh M (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polissena Ruffo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corigliano, Montalto and Calabrese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please remember to provide an edit summary. Thank you.--Launchballer 12:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your great contributions! Please to be aware the italics are only used for genus or species, not for tribes, families, orders etc. Opinion differs if it is allowed for unranked clades, but there is no formal ruling for it yet in nomenclature so it is not done on Wikipedia either. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey—do you use a stub sort tool, or do you edit every page manually with that edit summary? czar · · 19:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lately, manually. However, I have used automatic tools also (AWB). Dawynn (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks czar · · 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lee Creek Snowshoe Cabin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Montana-struct-stub]}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be moribund. However, I'm in one of my AWB-ing moods at the moment; let me know if there's anything you'd like a hand with and I'll add it to the list. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao<sup>Che dicono a Signa?</sup><sub>Lo dicono a Signa.</sub> 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm stubborn. Still holding on. I think there's only one or two other stragglers left. And I mostly just work on whatever strikes my fancy at the time. So, anything you can help with is appreciated. Dawynn (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righty-O. I'll nose around there tonight and see what I can come up with. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao<sup>Che dicono a Signa?</sup><sub>Lo dicono a Signa.</sub> 14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawnn! Could you please reinstate this article to my userspace? I thought it had plenty enough information to qualify for stub status, but more to the point, it serves a useful purpose: the Australian National Library has just completed OCR scanning of the pages of every issue for its Trove retrieval system; I am trying to persuade them to replace their WP link for the publication which at the moment is simply "Standard", (for which anyone citing from its pages gets a dab notice) to Standard (Frankston). Doug butler (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn - I was in an AWB'ing mood today and decided to do some stubsorting... I stumbled across Category:Aircraft stubs, which has several small subcategories that should (probably?) be upmerged. Two have less than 20 pages, four more have less than 30. I haven't nominated any stub categories for upmerging since the process was combined with CfD (yes, I know, that's been a while!), and am not quite sure of the process. Would you mind walking me through it? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, the Aircraft stubs are undertagged. Some time ago, someone went through and untagged numerous articles because they had a little bit of text along with the airplane specifications. A catscan can help identify articles that should be retagged.

That being said, there are instructions on the CfD page detailing how to use the CfD templates. Basically, nominate the category for deletion, asking to have the template upmerged to the parent. Dawynn (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the principal author of the above article, and I noticed that you recently upranked it from Stub-class to Start-class. I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and would like the article to be developed as much as possible. I took the liberty of looking over the criteria for Start-class articles on WikiProject Politics and am curious what you feel its weak points are, and if you have any particular suggestions of what could be done to further improve it.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I work with Wikiproject Stub Sorting. My change in the assessment is simply an indication that I believe your article no longer ranks as a stub. Reviewing the article again, I can see that this particular article may well deserve a higher ranking. Since each wikiproject has differing ideas as to what qualifies for a particular ranking, I'm choosing to list your article on the "Requests for Assessment" on the WikiProject Politics page. Dawynn (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawynn (talk) Hi how to add a new article in Hindi . I want to create a article in Hindi not in English. How to do It?? Ghanshyam Tiwari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharthyit (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Articles in Hindi should be created at the Hindi Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your proposal from June 2013, and posted my support at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2013/June#Split_of_Category:India_school_stubs Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of pvp games, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hangman and Cartoon Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_25#Category:Prehistoric_Perciformes_stubs. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about your re-categorization of Ancylistaceae. (Not that I disapprove.) Why did you change the stub? Do you have plans to re-categorize the rest of the stubs in fungi belonging to Entomophthorales? TelosCricket (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else built Category:Entomophthorales. I just saw that it was undersized and added what I could find. Dawynn (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy! Thanks! Keep up the good work!TelosCricket (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you'd added {{Engine-aircraft-stub}} to a large number of articles; several of the articles concerned, such as Blok 2BL, are about rocket stages - which are neither aircraft nor engines - could you possibly keep an eye out in case any more such articles are included in your list. --W. D. Graham 11:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Deming Public Schools , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Joe (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu<sup>Talk</sup> 13:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Long Island, New York Registered Historic Place stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sirikonda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nizamabad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Agapanthiini may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''[[Ludwigia (beetle))|Ludwigia]]'' <small>Pic, 1891</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acanthocinini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moala. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oemini may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Cerambycinae}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stenoderini may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
** ''[[Calliprason costifer]]'' <small>Broun, 1886)</small> ** ''[[Calliprason elegans]]'' <small>Sharp, 1877)</small> ** ''[[Calliprason pallidus]]'' <small>Pascoe, 1875)</small> ** ''[[Syllitus rectus]]'' <small>Newman, 1841)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alcyopis nigrovittata may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Neoibidionini-stub}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alcyopis chalcea may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Neoibidionini-stub}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alcyopis nigromaculata may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Neoibidionini-stub}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to my first article, Artvoice. It was only a draft until the chance of it being deleted while it was still in my user space moved me to fight for its survival and placement as an article. I have lived in Buffalo, NY my entire life. I was surprised that at least some information about Artvoice was not previously available. Please feel free to expand the article. My primary interest has been to edit articles in an effort to educate readers in subjects that I am interested in. Now that readers of Buffalo, NY have a method of learning about Buffalo without buying a subscription to The Buffalo News I am satisfied. Do you think that expansion of this article is practical? I pick up Artvoice at my favorite tavern, Sportsmens, almost every week. There is no home delivery but it is available at supermarkets and other retail locations in the City.1archie99 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! Honestly, I know nothing about Buffalo. My Wikipedia efforts have mostly been in categorizing stub articles to help editors find articles related to topics that interest them. That being said, I wish you well in your efforts to inform others of your great city. Dawynn (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable, self-sourced, PR device

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. Bogger (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable

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. Bogger (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article I Don't Care (EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable

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. Bogger (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interested to know why you have tagged some aviation articles as "stubs" when it says they are "start" class on the talk page? MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd turn that question on its head: why have all of these articles that truly are stubs now marked as Start class (or higher!)? I have had similar disagreements in the past where certain groups choose to give their articles inflated ratings based on the presence of certain key statistics or article headings, even though the level of descriptive text is clearly still stub level. Because each workgroup can define its grading characteristics so much differently, I choose to no longer degrade articles on the talk page.

When WP:WPSS tags articles as stubs, we're looking at the descriptive text of the article. Infoboxes and similar lists of statistics add bulk to the article, but are largely ignored when deciding if an article is a stub. I would ask that, before your group mounts a campaign to clear the stub tags from a slew of articles -- actually add to the article. Write about the subject matter. That way, we can all see that the article is truly "start"ed. Dawynn (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a problem with the difference of opinion on what is a stub but it would have been nice for you to explain that to the project rather than fly by tagging without an explanation. Some of your edits have already been reverted by editors who clearly read the talk page and decided something is wrong with what you do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer <sub>(Talk)</sub> 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that stub categories were sorted under "Σ" which would appear after "Z" in higher categories. They are now appearing between "R" and "T", as though they were "S", but still keeping the "Σ". What happened? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating a series of subfamily-level stub templates for the Erebidae family of moths several weeks ago. I have begun using Scolecocampinae-stub on appropriate moth pages (e.g., Scolecocampa) and noticed that the template puts the pages in the Erebidae stubs category instead of in a Scolecocampinae stub category. Could the latter category be created and used by the same-named stub template? Treichar (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could, but see the guidelines on stub category proposals at Wikipedia:WSS/P. Basically -- new templates are often allowed for reasonable category breakdowns (especially if we have a corresponding "permanent" category). However, in order to avoid overcategorization, we typically do not approve a new stub category until at least 60 articles have been tagged. Until that time, the template is "upmerged" to a higher level category. You are still able to see what articles specifically apply to a template by checking the "what links here" link on the template. Dawynn (talk)

Hi. Today my list of pages with invisible characters was unexpectedly large. I noticed that you added stub tags using AWB. I have a question: Did you copy the word "Sesiidae-stub" from somewhere or did you direcly type it in the F&R window of AWB? This will help me find the source of all these invisible characters.

If you wonder, there was a left-to-right mark (200E) hidden before "-" in the text you added. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably copied from the main article title. Thank you for correcting the problem. Dawynn (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I accepted your proposal to create the category above. Just wanted to tell you. Also, don't forget to make the template! Gug01 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (71st to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --<sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 23:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to tell you, I accepted this proposal you made. Go ahead and please create the stub categories! Gug01 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When you remove stub tags, please also update any templates on the article's talk page, accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's been a long time now since I've accepted the proposal that you made to split the Category:Spilomelinae stubs, yet the stubs and stub templates have still not been created. Please create the templates and categories. Gug01 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd asked for splits in the Arctiidae back in January 2014. I'd chosen to give them some attention finally. I thank you for your interest in the Spilomelinae. Even though I made the proposal, I do not have a monopoly even on that proposal. Now that the templates have been approved, they may be created. If sufficient articles can be tagged, feel free to create the approved categories also. Dawynn (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I accidentally undid one of your edits and I apologize Saturn star (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I was wondering why you reverted the stub tag, but kept the permanent category tag. No harm done. Dawynn (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted both of the splits, but I see that you haven't created most of the categories or templates. Can you please create them? Just wanted to remind you. Gug01 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back off. You can see that I've already started on the Tachinidae. And honestly, The 5-day standard waiting period for discussion of a new proposal has not ended. Although a proprosal generally indicates that a particular user is willing to make the changes, it is no guarantee that said user can immediately fill those categories. Expect that contributors work on Wikipedia in their spare time.

Honestly, you have been overstepping your bounds by casting your vote on these discussions and immediately closing all discussion. I thank you for your enthusiasm in contributing to WP:WSS, but please read through the established guidelines for how proposals work. Dawynn (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. Gug01 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawynn, I see you've been working hard on stub sorting of the Arctiinae moth pages. Keep up the great work. And thanks for filing the proposal for the proper tree of stub categories for the group. I had skipped this subfamily in my Erebidae subfamily stub-splitting proposal and forgot to revisit it later. Treichar (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please double-check my work. I used several resources, and I'm not sure how reliable they all are. Dawynn (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Dawynn.

You've recently used the edit summary "Stub sorting" on a bunch of articles where you did not in fact sort but instead added a stub tag even though they were assessed as Start, C or better.

Looking through your talk page history it seems you are being driven by Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged stubs which uses article text size as one of its parameters. Would you kindly point to the discussion and consensus for doing this? My understanding has always been that small size of itself does not make a stub. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment (where there is no mention of size) or Wikipedia:Stub#How big is too big? which says explicitly "...it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length".

-Arb. (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thank you for helping to prove my point. There are a number of statements in that same article that you pointed to (about How big is too big?), including "Similarly, stub status usually depends on the length of prose text alone". Feel free to review the aforementioned articles of which you are concerned. Yes -- determination of a stub is largely subjective. Yes, I will often add the "stub sorting" designation when sorting stub articles that have not previously been tagged. And yes, while I will try to be respectful and upgrade an article when I am *removing* stub tags -- I do not degrade an over-graded article. This is because, historically, I have been scolded when trying to do so. The aviation wikiproject in particular typically overgrades its articles simply because they have added several headings with statistics but very little prose text. In such situations, the aviation category may give a grade of "start" or "C" because the headings and statistics exist, even though the article contains only a stub article's amount of prose text. I let them keep their wikiproject categorization, but still add the stub tag because, for the sake of greater Wikipedia, the article is truly a stub. Dawynn (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arb's point that "stub-sorting" is a confusing edit summary for the act of adding a {{stub}}. Although I can't find a definition of "stub-sorting" either at WP:Glossary or in the WP:WSS project, I am certain that it is generally taken to mean the second phase: moving from {{stub}} to a more specific stub tag. Could you perhaps use "Stub tagging" as a clearer edit summary? I don't think you are "sorting stub articles that have not previously been tagged" if you are simply tagging them as stubs by adding {{stub}}. Thanks. PamD 09:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arb: I've raised the question of definition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#What is stub sorting?. PamD 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit like this[3] you are adding a stub tag to an article that hardly meets the "containing only one or a few sentences of text ... too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject" definition in WP:STUB. If you are using some automated measure (wordcount?) to decide whether an article is/not a stub then would you then remove the stub tag if the addition of a few words took the article over your(?) definition of a stub. In other words, wouldn't it be better (e.g. to avoid unnecessary watchlist noise) if you only stub-tagged pages that clearly are stubs? DexDor (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment again at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_17#Category:South_Korean_music_stubs, as there are "Korean" (not "South") parents which could be tackled at the same time. – Fayenatic London 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I closed that as Keep, created one stub template as suggested, and re-categorised many from Korean-singer-stub to SouthKorea-singer-stub. When you return to Wikipedia, you may want to implement some of the other proposals you made in that discussion. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - since you've previously edited the article. Bazj (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Robert Hall Baker —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Packerfansam (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm curious about what the point of adding the popstub tag (example) is. What editors are you expecting to see that tag? What difference do you expect the tag to have on the edits that those editors make? If you know that there are more articles that belong in the category then why don't you categorize them yourself? and if you don't know that there's more articles that belong in the category then why do you think the tag is appropriate? When should the tag be removed? Will you review that category in a few months and consider removing the popstub tag? DexDor <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in WP:WSS! Please review Wikipedia:Stub to see some of the basic project guidelines. As noted in several places, ideally, in order to be manageable, stub categories should have no more than 800 articles and no less than 60 articles. Any editors familiar with the category can help identify articles that need more attention to bring them beyond the "stub" level. If 60 articles cannot be found to sufficiently fill a category, then consider whether its worth maintaining the stub category. Feel free to nominate the category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Dawynn (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't actually answer any of my questions about the purpose of adding the tag - the most important of which is How do you expect the presence of the tag to affect what an editor does?. Afaics all the popstub tag is saying is that at some time in the past the category contained less than 60 articles; I fail to see how that's useful to anyone. It's natural that the number of articles in any particular stub category will vary over time. DexDor <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It intends to do exactly what it says. "Please add any articles that fall within this category to it." How do you add to the category? As shown in the "Stub category" header, add the noted template to the article. Once the category has been filled to an appropriate level -- feel free to remove it. Yes -- it is not an automatic add or removal of the popstub or verylargestub headers. But we try to review on a regular basis where the tags need to be added or removed. As always, editors are free to do whatever they choose. This is Wikipedia, after all. Dawynn (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meknès-Tafilalet geography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doukkala-Abda geography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

And while I'm here, I implore you to stop adding popstub tags to stub categories of pre-2015 Moroccan regions like Category:Taza-Al Hoceima-Taounate geography stubs. Please recategorize the stubs into the those corresponding to the new regions and delete the obsolete categories instead. Cobblet (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that I have not kept up with the politics and changing geographical divisions of all countries around the world. I assume that others keep track of those divisions and will adjust categories as needed. If you are familiar with any changes to Morocco, please add the appropriate cfd or cfr tags (see WP:CFD#HOWTO). There was no cfd or cfr tag on the Taza-Al Hoceima-Taounate category (and there still isn't). Had there been one, I would have refrained from adding the tag until the matter was resolved. Dawynn (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I'm not a categorization specialist and haven't participated at CfD except to propose removing categories that are already empty. If there's somewhere where I can draw more people's attention to the need to recategorize these Moroccan geography stubs, let me know. Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another template that I think can help clarify that some of these categories are outdated. I'll start adding it to the categories where I can determine the division is no more. Dawynn (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DoukkalaAbda-geo-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. ~ Rob<sup>Talk</sup> 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawynn - I've left a comment one of the speedy renames you've listed at cfr (Low Island geography stubs) - you might want to take a look. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn, your recent AWB edit rate has been excessive, flooding recent changes at editing rates of ~1/second. High speed jobs, even if run by an editor, fall under the bot policy. If you have any more large jobs that need to be run rapidly, please submit a bot account request at WP:BRFA - this will also allow you to run AWB in "automatic" mode, saving you a lot of clicks. Please let me know if you have any questions. — xaosflux <sup>Talk</sup> 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Stub improvement. We work on improving stub articles on Wikipedia to above stub status quality. If you are interested in joining, please feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 18:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see that on the list of stub types, you added three numbered columns, under "Theatre (structure) stubs" (see this edit). This type of listing hasn't appeared elsewhere on the list, so I wanted to ask why it's done here. Thanks for your consideration. Her Pegship (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. I copied some of my sandbox notes to the page as a help in building some of the links -- then failed to delete my notes. Yes, that was a mistaken edit. I deleted the ugly stuff. Dawynn (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central-Leatherstocking, New York Registered Historic Place stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. MB 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hi there, I've just removed the {{popstub}} template you added to Category:Prince Edward Island road stubs. You had added it a few months ago and I went through all of the PEI roads articles then and added all of the stubs I could find, so the category doesn't need to be populated if there are no more stubs to add. If you know of more articles that should be added to the category, you should just add the category to the articles, but I don't think there are any more. Ivanvector (<sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Edits</sub>) 17:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still underpopulated. If you don't like the popstub template, then I'll just add the underpopulated category. Dawynn (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(As noted in the various main WP:WSS articles, minimum size for a stub category is about 60 articles - this category is thus only about half-populated to the *minimum* level) Dawynn (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wish I had been notified about the discussion. Soltaniyeh has been recently promoted to a county of its own. We are working on administrative divisions of Iran at Persian Wikipedia: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:ویکی‌پروژه تقسیمات کشوری ایران/فاز دوم. Sometimes, I fix some of the mistakes of English Wikipedia articles. Regards 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First, my apologies for not notifying all of the appropriate groups.
• Second, I realize that geopolitical changes happen. Please update the Wikipedia pages to reflect the current status of this region. If its now a county, the main page itself should be moved to Soltaniyeh County and the description on that page changed to reflect its current status. (Currently the page is labeled "Soltaniyeh District") Likewise, the Abhar County page needs updated to reflect that Soltaniyeh is no longer a part of that county.
• Finally, while the template is a good thing, and can be used to validly tag articles, stub categories should not be created until the community finds and tags 60 articles or more for the category. Then, the templates can be changed to fill the new category.

For now, I've moved the template over to Category:Zanjan Province geography stubs. Any appropriate articles should first be loaded to the primary category (Category:Soltaniyeh County‎). Appropriate stub articles may also be tagged with template {{Soltaniyeh-geo-stub}}. I have no issue with seeing the stub category recreated once it can be populated with a reasonable number of articles. Dawynn (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Gorani Citizens' Initiative—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heteromyidae stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've seen the good work you've been doing in splitting up spider stubs by families. Some points:

• The family name should always have a capital within the template.
• If there are enough stub articles in a given spider family to warrant a specialized stub template, then there are enough to warrant a specialized family stubs category (and if there aren't enough to warrant a specialized family stubs category, then there aren't enough to warrant a specialized stub template). So I would always set the stub template to create the corresponding stubs category. As you may be aware, categories filled by templates are processed slowly and can take a long time (days if not weeks) to fill up, so the fact that new spider family stubs categories are currently empty doesn't matter.
• It's conventional to put two blank lines before a stub template, so when you convert "spider-stub" to "FAMILY-stub", it's a good idea to check this.

Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be continuing stub sorting of beetles or other organisms, please consider creating categories for genera and placing species articles in those categories. You've been moving articles from subfamily categories to tribe categories, which is certainly helpful. But ultimately many of them should probably be moved another rank down the taxonomic category tree. If there are 5-10 articles for species in a single genus, a genus level category is likely appropriate (and if there are 5-10 blue link species in a genus with dozens of red links, a genus category will certainly be appropriate as additional species articles are created). Plantdrew (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catalonian building and structure stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 12#Category:SCI Games stubs as "delete", I saw a note at Category:Square Enix stubs (see here) suggesting that these articles potentially should have been retagged with {{SquareEnix-stub}}. Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 21:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed that, I would agree -- could have been retagged as SquareEnix games. Dawynn (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - see edits. -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawynn, please be aware that per our policy at WP:NFCC #9, the use of non-free images such as File:Athens 2004 logo2.jpg is not permitted on templates, such as Template:2004-Paralympics-stub. I've removed the various non-free images you put in these stub templates. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List of role-playing video games: 2016 to 2017, Dawynn!

Wikipedia editor Atsme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I added the WikiProject Video game banner for assessment. A merge was proposed last year, so hopefully something can be worked out.

To reply, leave a comment on Atsme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

<sup>Atsme📞📧</sup> 13:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you did some work on Hearing (person). I'm just letting you know that I have proposed this article for deletion.CircleGirl (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability unclear, so short as to be nearly useless.

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. PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of games using hardware transform and lighting 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 games using hardware transform and lighting 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. Martin Kraus (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Estolides. Since you had some involvement with the Estolides redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tigraan<sup>Click here to contact me</sup> 16:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Aphnaeini-stub}} has been proposed for renaming to template:Aphnaeinae-stub, please see WP:CFDS. 09:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lungless salamanders, 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. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 04:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allahabad division 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. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Apamea (moth) stubs 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daoukro&type=revision&diff=979761703&oldid=973788578

Very strange --AliceBzh (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Teen magazine stubs 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 14:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Psapharochrus 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 16:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Osteolepiformes 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 15:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bisaltes (genus) 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Bà Rịa–Vũng Tàu Province geography stubs 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Møre og Romsdal church stubs has been nominated for deletion. 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. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Micrarctiina-stub has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the stub template guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the template's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Massachusetts Air and Space Museum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable museum

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. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 233.5 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dawynn! 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 <sup>talk</sup> 17:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Ozineus 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Réunionnais people stubs 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. Oculi (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Nyssodrysina 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cephalia 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 01:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exelastini 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. AddWittyNameHere 00:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Allahabad division 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 <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 20:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rasborinae-stub has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the stub template guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the template's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andumé (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rasborinae stubs has been nominated for deletion. 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. Andumé (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Rasborinae 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]