User talk:RevelationDirect/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Places of worship CFD[edit]

Hi RevelationDirect

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship, you appear to have !voted twice. You may want to fix this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: When I first looked, I thought I did too actually but User:Ingratis just linked to my user ID just before their own signature. (@Ingratis: I took the liberty of editing your comment slightly by putting my name in paratheses to make it clearer that the !vote was yours.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. Sorry, RevelationDirect. I misread it.
Thanks for being so nice about my error, and for the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I totally have accidentally voted twice before when the noms are relisted! RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halls of fame[edit]

The Hall of Fame Hall of Fame

Congrats on the CFDs for halls of fame inductees. Looking last night at Category:Hall of fame inductees and its subcats, it seemed to me that over 90% of them should go. Pity we can't just do one big cleanout.

If you keep up this good work, you'll have to be inducted into the Hall of Fame Hall of Fame . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! The sheer number of non-notatble award categories can be overwhelming and I'm hoping that cleaning up the Halls of Fame is a shorter term initiatve. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! The encouragement is much-deserved.
I hope that if you are successful in a decent proportion of these nominations, the weight of precedent will allow a tightening of the guidance at WP:OCAWARD to explicitly say that Hall of Fame categs are almost never acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BHG - I also came over to say thanks to RD for their impressive work - getting so much done, quietly and efficiently in the background. Categories are a Rubics Cube for me. Keep up the excellent work, RD!!! yes Atsme Talk 📧 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I suspect I spend a lot more time reading through these categories to see whether or not they are defining than was ever spent creating them. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (TPS) Why do you think "These are sometimes important for navigation" and "a list article does not really assist readers in finding other individuals similarly situated..."? Remember, most readers won't even see the category links. DexDor (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the categories at the bottom of every article, Dex, what are you talking about? There are hidden categories, but those are more in-house things. Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most readers use Mobile (not Desktop) view and that doesn't show categories. DexDor (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that not displaying them for most users is a bad thing, but it is our problem. All categories have been demoted to de fact administrative status for most readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mass deletion of Hall of Fame categories going on. They are being nominated either individually or small groups and evaluated on their merits to reach a consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: Thank you for your feedback. Clearly my nominations are concerning from your perspective (here because I'm nonimating too many Hall of Fame categories that are too large or, conversely, in the Equestrian halls of fame in Texas conversation, because of inconsistently targeting small-scale HOF categories.) In that nomination you had a side conversation with DexDor where you mentioned that categories "can be overdone" and I'm hoping there's room there for us to come closer to agreement. Would you mind elaborating on how we would know when they've been overdone? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Category:People who were rejected for the Victoria Cross[edit]

Thanks for nominating that. If I'd seen it sooner, I'd also have voted to delete it. People kept putting Siegfried Sassoon in there and there's no real evidence that he was ever considered for a VC. Deb (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! RevelationDirect (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there was once hope[edit]

that there were adequate geols who could have expanded those two cats - they never happened or simply drifted away into the smelter smoke in the sky JarrahTree 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Understood, I have a few unfinished projects sitting around Wikipedia too, haha. I would suggest the right path forward would be to start a list article like List of minerals named after places in Australia like we have for List of minerals named after people. (I would model the format of List of tallest buildings in Sydney which has a sortable list you could duplicate but with different columns.) Without pre-supposing the outcome of my CFD nomination, there really isn't any existing category tree to place these into because of WP:SHAREDNAME. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ta for your generous responses - the shortfall of eds is a constant issue with me - but dont let me start... JarrahTree 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello/RTI International[edit]

Hi RevelationDirect. I work for RTI International, a non-profit research organization. I proposed some edits to the page in hopes that an independent editor would review and provide any feedback. Most of this is to trim promotion and weak sources, improve copyediting, or make un-controversial updates. However, there are a couple highlighted parts where someone added uncited criticisms, which is the main thing I was hoping an independent editor would take a look at. 

I noticed you showed an interest in a similar research organization and non-profits and thought you might have an interest in reviewing the proposed edits, or at least the highlighted ones that would look bad if I did them myself. Thoughts? Mzap RTI (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts[edit]

Further information: Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts

Hi. One or more of your pages have DEFAULTSORT conflicts: (search)

Please either

in the affected pages. Thank you. – Ase1estet@lkc0ntribs 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regal Entertainment Group has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Regal Entertainment Group, 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. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RevelationDirect/Archive_2019&oldid=1022069035"