User talk:Kjell Knudde

Welcome!

Hello, Kjell Knudde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gman124 ^talk 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Fictional obese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, and 81.240.203.129 - if you're actually not the same person, have created and been adding people to a category which was already once created and deleted on 3 July, 2008; this category has again been voted for deletion. Please don't repeat this as doing so will result in a 4im, Only warning. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

How notable is this? There are no references, first of all. Also, since Robert Crumb is still alive, and due to the racially-charged subject matter, this article is a BLP nightmare.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. MaenK.A._Talk 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gymnastics, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Deaths in 2010, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albatross (Monty Python) Dlohcierekim 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny. I've been work on the main Brel article for the past month, and was in the process of creating articles for Brel's other films when I saw you created a link for L'Emmerdeur. So I created the article from that link after correcting the spelling (French title formats per [Manual of Style]).

I merged your content into my article, using your structure and additional credits and information. I also replaced my French character roles with your English translations. Take a look and see what you think. Sorry for the confusion.

Rjaklitsch (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Louis Edouard Fournier requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You made an Article for creation page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant (2011-10-16), but it was never actually submitted for a review.

I have submitted it just now, so you should get feedback soon. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 21:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kjell Knudde. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Simon Sturtevant.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simon Sturtevant}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snow White and the Seven Perverts 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/Snow White and the Seven Perverts 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 notice from the top of the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nero by Marc Sleen, publicity image.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Adhemar (comic book character).gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lambik.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 12:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been adding the genre "gag cartoon" to the listing for many comic strips. If you check the link that that goes to, you'll find that it applies to single-panel cartoons, and should not be applied to many of the strips you're applying it to, which have several panels in the typical installment. Please stop these additions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a page for gag comics in general? Because this is the format I mean: comic strips that build to a single gag, either in one picture ("Family Circus"), three or four images ("Peanuts", "Hagar"), one page ("The Smurfs"),... In other words humoristic comics that generally don't follow continuous stories. User talk:Kjell Knudde 24 August 2015 (UTC).

While I could see creating some sort of delineation, it might be trickier to apply than you might think. For example, Peanuts, while definitely hitting a humor point every day, uses many of its dailies for multi-day storylines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - could you kindly undo the "gag cartoon" additions to Peanuts yourself? I have a WP:COI on that particular topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true some kind of story line could be followed over the courses of several "Peanuts" gags, but the most important distinction between a gag comic and other humoristic comic strips is perhaps the lack of a "to be continued..." below the page. The gags can be enjoyed out of context, even if you missed a few episodes. It's strange that there isn't an article for "gag comics" yet. Especially since it's such a popular format for daily or weekly magazines. I found articles for it on other language pages of Wikipedia too. Perhaps I could translate one of them. -- User:Kjell Knudde 16:50 24 August 2015 (UTC).

I found what I meant: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gag-a-day. I'll change what needs to be changed. -- User:Kjell Knudde 17:01 24 August 2015 (UTC).

That's a separation that you get in the Europe that we really don't have in the US; we don't have marked-as-to-be-continued humor stories. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's where the confusion stems from. I noticed the same thing with other articles about comics. Outside Europe people don't understand the "album" format either. Much like newspaper comics aren't a separate genre in Europe like they are in the USA. -- User:Kjell Knudde 17:01 24 August 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) Agreed; this "Gag-a-day comics" category has been occasionally applied recently for inexplicable reasons. Little Annie Fanny was assigned this category before it was rightfully reverted. And there is no reason to repeatedly assign a correlation between an editor's nationality and their types of edits. You don't know if their nationality has anything to do with their edits unless they tell you it does. It doesn't matter anyway; it's what an editor provides from their research of the reliable sources that matters. Prhartcom (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this particular discussion the matter was already solved a few days ago, when Gertler showed me that "gag cartoon" was not what I assumed it to be. And as I promised I set right what I promised to do. Anyway, to make matters clear: I only talked about a difference in interpretation based on culture. I never said anybody was wrong in this discussion, nor did I presume that every misinterpretation made is solely a matter of cultural differences. By the way, I have a slight fear that you feel offended about my words, Prhartcom: I sincerly hope this is not the case. I have no intention to start fights and hope we can all get along fine in the future. I also have no problems with America's comic book culture. -- User:Kjell Knudde 14:49 26 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi. Thanks for creating the "comic debuts" categories. They'll all have to be moved to "comics debuts", though, as "comics" refers to the medium, and "comic" can be confused with "comedic" or "comedian". "Comics" is an uncountable noun when referring to the medium, and as such is a noun adjunct when used as an adjective. This is well-established usage that you'll see in the works Eisner, Spiegelman, McCloud, and others. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the categories have been listed as "comic debuts" for a long time now. Check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1910s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1920s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1930s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1940s_comics_debuts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1950s_comics_debuts, here, and so on. Nowhere else is the word "comics" used. I'm not going to argue against a decision that has been made in the past about the matter. I understand your point and I see why "comics" would fit better, especially since we now have a confusing situation where "Category: 1950s comics debuts" for instance, leads to subcategories named "1950 comic debuts", "1951 comic debuts", "1952 comic debuts",... I think it would be best to bring it to a forum and ask for a namechange of all these categories. Because consistency in categories is what is favorable. If other users agree (and are willing to change all the articles) it's fine with me. - User:Kjell Knudde 13:55 25 August 2015 (UTC).

• You can see it's a serious problem, then, if the names of the categories are in conflict. I've just moved all the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s to "comics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you only made it worse. Now all the articles don't have their proper categories anymore. Each one of them ought to be redirected too individually. User:Kjell Knudde 14:12 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, there are bots that will fix the redirects automatically. The articles will be fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, don't forget all the other decades too. They go on before 1910 and after the 1930s too. User:Kjell Knudde 14:25 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Hi, I'm curious why you are creating categories like Category:1973 comics debuts when we already have Category:1973 comic debuts, etc., etc. You are creating an awful lot of unnecessary work for yourself and creating duplication which then needs fixing. If you think all "XXXX comic debut categories" should be changed to "XXXX comics debuts" then you can get a robot to make all the relevant changes so you can go and start a discussion over here: WP:CFD. I have no objections to the changes (I started most of them) but we do need them to be consistent across the site and not have categories duplicating others. You could probably request a speedy rename to get it all done. Emperor (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Emperor well, it wasn't my idea. As you can read from the comments above it was originally user Curly Turkey who wanted all the categories to be changed into comics debuts rather than "comic debuts". I was against the idea, especially since I too favor consistency on Wikipedia and could predict that he wouldn't have the energy to make all of the neccessary changes and someone else would have to clean up the rest. And indeed, before I knew it, he had already changed three decades by adding a redirect (1910s, 1920s, 1930s) and just left the rest like it was. Since I was already checking all the articles and adding more necessary categories (year of introduction, genre, nationality,...) I decided to just go ahead and finish what he started. I've made redirects to all the decades up until 1979 by now. I know it's rather tedious and your help is definitely appreciated, but I'm studying comics history at the moment so for me it's not such a huge problem to go by each article about a comic strip one by one. Several of the more obscure and/or foreign entries were so minimal that I'm actually glad I'm taking a look at all of them. Some, especially foreign titles and obscure comics, leave a lot to be desired and I've rewritten, added, linked and sourced more info to them if necessary. But feel free to add the bot to the remaining pages (1980s until the 2010s) so that all the articles are automatically moved to the proper page. The quicker it's done, the better.- User:Kjell Knudde September 6 2015 (2:47) (CET).

Yes, I see you had to rather take over to sort it out, but as a student of comics history I'm sure we can find more interesting work for you to do than the rather tedious work of creating new categories, editing all the articles to include the new ones and... it is making my head hurt. It wasn't that exciting creating them and adding them, but I have been doing it slowly over the years and it was necessary.

I'm not as fully engaged with Wikipedia business at the moment, but if you hang fire on new categories, I'll look into summoning a robot to run through the rest of them. Thanks for the work so far and I look forward to seeing your future contributions (which I hope will be more interesting for you ;) ). Emperor (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure of the procedure here, so to try and get it sorted out asap, I've posted here. Emperor (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here I thought I should flag up edits like this. There was no comic that debuted in 1940 (that was the year the character was introduced, which is correctly categorised), Fictional American people is made redundant by American comics characters (as the latter is a child of it). I'd also suggest American comics characters is redundant as the page already has DC Comics superheroes and Archie Comics superheroes, which are child categories for American comics publishers. At the moment those two categories aren't children of American comics characters, but they should be - I see you have created that category and populated it, but I'd suggest you've done that in the wrong places - rather than, for example, Category:Batman characters being a child of it, Category:DC Comics characters should be as it makes more sense that way structurally. Category: American comics characters should be kept relatively clear, only including pages that don't have relevant American comics publishers categories already.

Hope that makes some sense - the general rule of thumb is to try and only categorise with the deepest nested categories (so Category:DC Comics superheroes not Category: Superheroes or Category: Comics characters, the first category being a child of the other two higher ones. So a lot of characters in there shouldn't be and I'll mark the category for diffusion. The higher level American comics publishers' character pages should be children of Category: American comics characters which would remove the need for Category:Batman characters - I'll pop a few of them in now, but I'll leave you to reverse the majority of your additions to that category.

Technically, I don't object to Category: American comics characters, but I think the reason some might is that there could be some confusion - the description makes it clear that this is for characters from American comics, not characters in comics who are American. However, it is a child of Category: Fictional American people which actually then demonstrates it is the latter. Unfortunately, Hägar the Horrible, Ka-Zar (comics), etc. aren't fictional American people and The Incredible Hulk (comic book) isn't a character it is a comic book, the character, obviously being Hulk (comics). The solution would be to remove Category: Fictional American people as it structurally changes the intent of the category - there has been a general reluctance to have categories for comics characters from specific countries, because with legacy characters and rolling continuities things aren't fixed like they might be in novels, for example, and we don't always get information about someone's nationality. I'd hate to referee the debate about Psylocke, although note the article is in Category:Fictional people from London...

Sorry about all that, but I do keep an eye on the comics categories to make sure it all makes sense and to ensure everything is properly categorised. I only happened across all this because I was editing Black Hood and noticed some problems [1] which I'll now revert following my points above (theoretically, the only one of those three that could be kept is Category: Fictional American people but a) has his nationality ever been stated in the comic and b) it is usually better to give it a more specific character if you can, as in the Psylocke case as Category: Fictional American people is itself flagged up for category diffusion, so we should try and avoid adding any characters to it).

I've not gone to the task of checking your other category additions, as there are a lot, but the sample of one I've seen suggests you might need to be a bit more careful with the categories you do add, as it may be some of them will need removing or refining and it is better to be as right as possible first time. Emperor (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought we'd done the dance over comics characters by origin and Category:American comics characters has been previously deleted, along with a slew of others, some of which I see you've re-created [2] (which I contributed to and was told a better formulation would be something like "Characters in American comics"). I'd personally be wary about putting too much effort into those as precedent will tend to mean they don't stand a long-term chance formulated as they are. If you wanted to continue, you'd be best to remove Category: Fictional American people from Category: American comics characters and propose a renaming to "Characters in American comics" (and the same with the other country variants you've started). I'll probably not be doing any edits connected to them myself because, until they are restructured and renamed, they are liable to get (speedily?) deleted. Emperor (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long text. I'll try to keep my reply short. 1) Many of those superhero comics articles are extremely chaotic in their categorization. I often see different debut years pop up so it's possible I may have misread a few of them. When in doubt I always went for the oldest. 2) When I first started categorizing comics characters by nationality there was only a "Category:British comics characters" and "Category:Scottish comics characters". I have no idea why these pages were (still) there while other nationality pages have been deleted. But I saw that these specifically made clear that they were categorizing comics characters originating in Great Britain, not just those who have a British nationality in their respective comic strip universe. I used the same line of thought with the other nationalities (Belgian, German, French, Spanish,...). When a character both originated in the USA and is identified as being American I've added both "American comics characters" as well as "Fictional American people". When not, I've added another nationality, if possible. Take Alphonse and Gaston. I categorized them as "American comics characters", because they originated there, but in the comic they are supposed to be Frenchmen, so I added "Fictional French people". The Dragon Lady (Terry and the Pirates) is an American comics character, but she originated in Asia according to the comics universe she is created in, so I added "Fictional Asian people". For Native American characters I just used "Fictional Native American people" instead of "Fictional American people". Nero and Zero are two Roman soldiers in a British comic strip, so I used "Category:British comics characters" and "Fictional ancient Romans". From reading the deletion page I see that this confusion was already an issue back then, plus that many felt that there wouldn't be enough articles to fill the categories. The confusion is definitely there, but on every "Comics characters by nationality" page I've specifically stated at the top of the page: "Comics characters who originated in the USA", "...Spain", "...Italy",... to make the purpose of the category clear. As for the matter of not having enough articles: this may have been true in 2007, but nowadays there are far more articles about Italian, Spanish, British,... comics characters than I could even imagine. So there definitely should be some way of categorizing those by nationality one way or the other. Another namechange, like you suggested, might provide the solution. Maybe something among the line of "American born comics characters", "Italian born comics characters" or "Comics characters born in the USA", "Comics characters born in Italy" might be a good solution. Or "Fictional American people in comics", "Fictional Spanish people in comics",... maybe? Because the "Fictional American people" as it is is rather large. Making a subcategory for the comics characters would be a good idea.

By the way, a category I personally find redundant is "comics titles". Why do we need "Spanish comics titles", "American comics titles" and "British comics titles" if there are also categories for "American comics" and "American comic strips"? Most articles are already about a comic strip published under that very name, so there is no need for differentiating it as a "title". - User:Kjell Knudde , 6 September, 2015,17:32 (CET).

"Long text" Yes sorry about that, brevity is no houseguest of mine - one of the reasons I've been trying to keep a low profile on Wikipedia at the moment.

On your points:

1) If you are unsure about categorising an article, then it is best to ask on the talk page.

2) Categories like Category:British comics characters aren't still there, they were deleted years ago and have been recently recreated (that one was started in 2014), so it is unwise to rely on them existing as a sign that this is now OK - if there had been a discussion to overturn the precedent from that category deletion discussion, then they'd have all been recreated. I'd imagine that, once someone notices all these categories, they'll all be mass nominated for deletion. You can state clearly what the category is about, but the current structure doesn't match that (putting Category: American comics characters under Category: Fictional American people says that this is really about fictional Americans in comics). As the naming is ambiguous that is problematic, as it is the categorisation that defines the category. Adding a child of Category: Fictional American people and Category:Comics characters by medium and nationality says that they are fictional characters with an American nationality. What you need are:

• Create "Fictional American people in comics" as a child of Category: Fictional American people and Category:Comics characters by medium and nationality (Category: American comics characters isn't about the character's nationality, but the country of origin of the publisher) - it clarifies what it is about but could see itself getting deleted as one of the arguments against this last time around is the difficulty of defining a nationality for a fictional character in comics. I am neutral at best about this, but if you are going to keep putting in Category: Fictional American people , etc. then this is a better approach, especially as that category marked for diffusion - we should find a better solution than putting comics characters into it.
• Change the name of Category:American comics characters to "Characters in American comics" and then have the relevant American comics publisher categories under that: Category:DC Comics characters, Category:Marvel Comics characters,etc. and only put characters into that category if there is no relevant publisher category. I suspect renamed, and with Category: Fictional American people and Category:Comics characters by medium and nationality removed, this stands a decent chance of surviving, especially as it'd allow you to almost completely clear pages from Category:Comics characters, which is too high level to have all but a handful of ambiguous characters. So you can argue that this has an important place within the wider structure. I'd support such a move and defend it is a deletion discussion if it is along the lines I describe.

On your other point: Category: American comics is the main category for the entire field of American comics - American comics creators, American comics publishers, American comics titles, etc. and should be largely empty except for those types of broad category and about half a dozen pages (like Free Comic Book Day, perhaps). I've removed a number of categories you and others have placed in there, as they shouldn't be there (and you've over-categorised those categories) so it makes a bit more sense. If you don't understand what a category is for, then ask, don't just jam other things in there as it'll need cleaning up. I helped thrash out the larger comics category structure, so can hopefully explain anything that is unclear. I'd rather sort it out than try and fix the issues piecemeal further down the line (as I haven't the time or energy to do that).

Oh and another tip - you added Category:Horror comics to this article [3] but it you check the previous version, it was already categorised [4]. Comics title templates, like {{Infobox comic book title}}, will generate genre and date categories automatically (and has been updated to generate the "XXXX comics debut" style of category). I've edited that article so that the infobox does a lot of the heavy lifting (leaving Fantasy comics as a hard coded category, because it would trigger compound categories that aren't relevant) [5]. If you are looking to add genre and year categories, then it'd be better to update the infobox rather than add them in directly.

And I've done it again. Sorry for the lengthy text but all this covers a lot of issues. (Emperor (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

- OK, when unsure about categories, I will ask. And I will refrain from adding “American comics characters” to categories like “DC comics characters”, “Marvel comics characters”, “EC comics characters”, because, indeed, you could just put those entire categories under “American comics characters”. I can see why nationalizing comics characters could be difficult, given the medium. On the other hand: you could easily say the same about literary characters. Or any fictional character in general. Why do we assume Sherlock Holmes is English? Because the stories portray him living in London. Why is Batman an American character, despite living in the fictional city of Gotham? Because we can all see it’s a typical American city. Nobody would assume Batman is Hungarian and he is marketed as an American character. The children from “Peanuts” don’t have a specific hometown at all, yet we all know they are American, based on their language and their surroundings. There is no real “proof” fictional characters have a certain nationality, other than their creator saying so. The rest is assumed by the readers based on the characters’ race, culture, name, clothing style or hometown. Or take countless fictional Frenchmen, Chinese, Native Americans, Russians, Mexixans,… Half of the time they are just walking stereotypes. An idea most people would have of those nationalities, despite not having any basis in reality today. The best thing about categorizing fictional characters by nationality is that you get a large scope of the way they are identified as being from that specific country. Some are nothing but a stereotype. Others are more three dimensional. I can get behind a renaming of the categories for “American comics characters”, though. Something like “Characters from American comics”, “Characters from Italian comics”, “Characters from British comics” is probably a bit more clear in its purpose. Summarizing characters from comics from that country, rather than assuming every comic book character from a specific country automatically has that very nationality. And like you said, it would help reducing the “Category:Comics characters” considerably. – User:Kjell Knudde 12:49, 6 september 2015 (CET).

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., note taken. - User:Kjell Knudde 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank-you. Will you begin including an edit summary, then? Prhartcom (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already do. It's just that I sometimes forget. - User:Kjell Knudde 10:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have reverted this change you made to Love is.... The intro states that Kim Grove created the strip in the 1960s, not the 1970s.

If you read further in the text the publication date is 1970. That's why it debuted in that year. If it appeared earlier we need a date that is less vague than "the 1960s". - User:Kjell Knudde, September 1, 2015.

You have been warned before: Please be courteous to others and provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. I suggest keeping your edit summary in your editor's "copy" buffer, then "paste" it in as you make your edits. Please remember that others deserve to know what edit you have made without your forcing them to check the edit revision history. Notice that all other helpful editors use the edit summary; you are very much in the minority by defying this common courtesy.

Remember that the Edit summary content is useful in the following areas:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use edit summaries that indicate the opposite of what you did, as here, where you deleted an article from category (and changed one) but said you added it to one. (I see you do a ton of category edits, so I presume the deletion was appropriate and intentional.) RememberOrwell (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw you created and populated Category:Fictional dandies (came across it via Patrick Bateman). It looks like you're using WP:OR to apply that label (connecting what the Dandy article describes it as and finding people in fiction you can apply that to). This seems like something you would need WP:RS for, but I thought I'd ask before removing it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the list on the Dandy page. I wouldn't agree with all the examples listed there, but there are definitely some characters who fit that description. If the category has to go then so should that list of fictional dandies on the Dandy page. - User:Kjell Knudde 15:23, 5 October 2015 (CET).

I see. I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but I suspect that list is largely based on WP:OR. Whether or not a character can be considered a dandy is not the sort of cut and dry thing like making a list of fictional police officers, fictional characters with a particular disease, etc. except insofar as the character is explicitly called a "dandy" (rather than described in the way one might describe a dandy) in the text. When they're not labeled as such in the work itself, it should require a reliable source which does. But, again, I don't actually have all that strong of an opinion on what to do with this :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Saginaw Krazy Kats, Kjell Knudde!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I'm userfying this.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

• Hi, Kjell Knudde! The space that I dream of horses created at User:Kjell Knudde/Saginaw Krazy Kats is for you to build an article about the ball team, if you so desire. Apparently, maybe unintentionally you had created the beginnings of an article at Saginaw Krazy Kats which just had category information. See your edit of 21:13, 11 October 2015. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Saginaw Krazy Kats was accidentally created by I dream of horses, and she/he has requested that it be speedily deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile, you placed your request for deletion in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Osteopathy subpage, instead of creating a new subpage for it, as the instructions at WP:Articles for deletion dictate. This is, apparently, a comedy of errors which is not so funny from the inside. I will remove your request from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Academy of Osteopathy. If you still believe there is a problem, just let I dream of horses know exactly what it is. Currently, Category:Krazy Kat looks fine, and User:Saginaw Krazy Kats is on the road to deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, all this is fine with me, as long as the entire page User:Kjell Knudde/Saginaw Krazy Kats is removed. Also, I know next to nothing about baseball, so I'll leave the creation of the article to someone else. -- User:Kjell Knudde, 1:19 , 11 October 2015 (CET)

Then you are good to go! User:Kjell Knudde/Saginaw Krazy Kats was deleted at 05:17, 12 October 2015 UTC. --Bejnar (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Chick tract, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent use of a "comic strips" category has in some cases been mistaken. Gay Comix, Meatmen, Strangers in Paradise, and others are not comic strips, but periodicals – comic books – in their own right. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing categories of articles about things you are unfamiliar with. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to discuss this, or do I have to ask for intervention? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "debut" categories are for ongoing series, not graphic novels. Saying that a graphic novel was published in year XXXX and that it "debuted" in XXXX is redundant and confusing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should explain my line of thought with the "comic strips" category. I originally assumed that the "LGBT-comics" category was the main category for topics involving "LGBT-comics" and that articles about specific series, books, novels and such should be subcategorized in the "LGBT-comic strips" section. As for the "graphic novels category": I'm sorry, I looked over it. - User:Knudde Kjell 3:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Comic strip" is simply not a correct term for them. A "strip" is a specic format: a short comic that's included in a newspaper or in a magazine with other material (or the web-based equivalent). Graphic novels are not strips. BD albums are not strips. American monthly comic books are not strips. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Wiske.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For writing and editing many articles in the cartoons domain. Your article on Eric de Noorman caught my eye! gidonb (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kjell Knudde, I notice you have been doing a lot of categorising lately, among which a fair number of fables figure. If you wanted source lists of fables to guide you, you'll find them at the end of articles on Aesop's Fables and La Fontaine's Fables.

I should like to advise, however, that you at least read the lead to the articles you categorise, if not the entire article. I have sometimes disagreed with your judgments on items on my watch list and have reversed them. I will give one example: The Young Man and the Swallow. This is virtually an illustrated proverb in which there is no interaction between man and bird. The bird functions purely as a bird and certainly does not speak. It cannot therefore be categorised as a fictional swallow since the whole point of the fable is that it acts like a real bird. The man draws a deduction from its appearance and later apostophises its dead body, which hardly qualifies them to be categorised as a literary duo. You might just as well enter into that category the proverbial Pot Calling the Kettle Black! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the appreciation and concern. I do read the articles to check if they fit the category. In fact, I was going through the fables and fairy tales to check for missing categories, but quit for a while because I first wanted to do some other ones. I will return to them shortly. Indeed, I have refrained from just adding every article with the words "X and (the) Y", precisely because in some cases it's not about a duo at all. I'll give a simple example: "War and Peace", "Crime and Punishment",... are more abstract concepts, so I will never list those as literary duos. In the example you gave, "The Young Man and the Swallow", I can understand your interpretation but I still feel they are a duo because the story is about two characters, whether they are real, anthropomorphic or metaphorical. Even with the "Pot and the Kettle" they are anthropomorphized objects who are able to talk, making them characters instead of just lifeless objects. I will agree it's fit for a discussion, though. - User:Kjell Knudde 14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we ought to discuss the parameters of what makes a duo, trio, etc. I have looked up duo in Merriam-Webster for US usuage and in Chambers for UK use. Both refer primarily to the musical meaning (also duet), and secondarily to "two persons etc associated in some way" (Chambers). As I have argued, really from the musical analogy that has primacy, there has to be active engagement. In an opera, there may be any number of persons on stage (there often are), but the duet is performed by interaction between just the two. Your argument that the title alone links the 'cast' together seems questionable, especially in the case of fables where titles often differ. To make a trio of "The miller, his son and the donkey" (as you have just done) would require the donkey (or ass in some versions) to be anthropomorphized and gifted with speech, and so play a more than passive part. I would prefer it, for the category to make sense, for the link to be made solely between the characters that play a principal part. I notice, for instance, that you (quite correctly) make a duo of The Tortoise and the Hare, even though a third animal (a fox, mole or whatever) plays a supplementary part as referee.

I have found you another list, by the way, at the end of Grimms' Fairy Tales. The downside to this is that many of the articles are no more than a stub mentioning that this is the title of a story from that publication. I'm wondering how you would categorize a story like The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids - a literary octet? Really the story consists of a duel between Mother Goat (who is not even mentioned in the title) and the Wolf. We really do need more rigour than simply categorizing by title alone. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should explain the entire idea behind "Literary duos". Until a few days ago we only had subcategories about "Fictional duos" for comics and animated cartoon characters, causing the list of "Fictional duos" to be very large. While I don't mind articles about comics and cartoon characters it does bother me when pop culture characters get more attention in articles than characters from less popular media such as literature. For instance, it amazes me some one-time characters from Star Wars, Batman or Disney films have their own character sheet articles, while so many characters from ancient tales are considered to be already "covered" in the article about the tale itself and thus not worthy of a separate article. In many cases the Wikipedia articles about fairy tales, fables, legends, folk tales and other oral tradition are very minimal in categorization, despite many being about animals or professions that we have separate categories for ("Fictional foxes", "Fictional birds", "Fictional kings", "Fictional farmers",...). Since these are often the most ancient examples of these narrative archetypes they too should be listed in the most appropriate categories. Of course, categorization is sometimes difficult. You could argue that the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is not a "real" wolf, because he is able to talk and cross-dress and would therefore fit more under the category "Anthropomorphic wolves", or something. And shouldn't the hunter be mentioned? He plays a minor, but vital part to the conclusion of the plot. Should the fairy tale be listed as a "Literary duo", because many people talk about "Little Red Riding Hood AND the wolf"? And isn't the article more about the story, rather than two separate characters? Is Dracula a "fictional bat"? Is a story about a hellhound about a "dog" or a "wolf"? You could really go on about this. In some cases the solution is easy. The Princess and the Pea, for instance, is more about a princess. The pea is just a macguffin in the story and not a character. Therefore I didn't categorize it under "Literary duos". A different example is a story called The Clever Little Tailor, which is about a tailor, so "Fictional tailors" fits as a category. However, in the same story a bear also plays a large part. Since this bear is not mentioned in the title and more or less a side character, albeit an important one, I used the category "Bears in popular culture", to indicate that this a story where bears play an important part, rather than "Fictional bears". I would do the same for "Hansel and Gretel", where a witch does play an important part, but she is not mentioned in the title, nor the focus of the story, nor the article, so the category "Witches in popular culture" fits better. Of course, in some cases you can't really make a clear decision. Many stories have other characters besides the ones mentioned in the title, though sometimes they are just additions. The Tortoise and the Hare is about a tortoise and a hare. Some children's stories depict other animals watching the race and one being a referee, but in the original tale no mention of other animals is made. It could just be about them two alone. With The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids the story is about mother goat, her seven goats and the wolf. Who plays a more important or bigger part is not really a deal here, because both the wolf, the mother and the little goats are vital for telling the story. I wouldn't categorize them as "fictional septets or octets" either, because we don't have a category for that topic and hardly enough characters in fiction that could be categorized as such. To get back at The miller, his son and the donkey: all the characters are indeed associated with each other. Whether the donkey is passive or not doesn't really matter. After all there are articles about characters who play no major active role in a story (damsel in distresses, kings who order a hero to do something for him but who stays home otherwise,...) or who are literally flat characters. Most characters in these folk tales are in fact flat characters, even the miller and his son of whom we know nothing, except that they subjugate themselves to the norm at this particular point of the story. Is the father really a miller? Is his child really his own son? Maybe the donkey could talk and just decided he wanted his owners to fail miserably, for the sake of the story's aesop. All of it is deliberately left vague, as you can expect from such a short story. In the end, what matters most for categorization is whether the characters in the title are separate beings that play an important role in the story. To me personally the donkey is equally important. You can't tell the tale without him. Yes, he could have been a different, more complex character, but then it would have been a completely different story too. Of course, others like you could interpret it in another way. That's the power of storytelling. :) - User:Kjell Knudde, November 8, 2015. 17:21 (CET).

OK, you've demonstrated that you know there's a problem with (let's call it) folk material. Now let's talk about rigour.

1. Have you in fact drawn up guidelines for how these categories are to be defined? So far there's nothing to stop me or anyone else deciding to 'help' you with your task by categorising the wolf and kids fable as an octet, nonet or duo. WP runs on guidelines in order to avoid chaos and rubbish.
2. You have to address the fact that the original versions of fables like The Boy Who Cried Wolf had no titles and go under a variety of them. Then in the case of The Lion's Share, the lion's hunting companions vary in type and number over a variety of versions.
3. Just who is supposed to be helped by these categorizations? How easy is it going to be for (re)searchers to make use of the lists if there are no valid parameters and no-one partolling them?
4. WP is an encyclopaedia open to all, agreed, but if a major initiative such as yours is going to be launched, then it should be according to agreed professional standards.

I'm happy to discuss the matter with you, or you might prefer to find someone with more expertise to advise. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Categorizing serves one major purpose: bringing all articles about a similar topic or theme together in one group. The same goes for subcategorizing. If you do a study about the way birds are portrayed in fiction or just need an overview of all the articles about fictional birds then "Fictional birds" would come in handy. The subcategory "Fictional penguins", "Fictional owls", "Fictional parrots",... is even better, because it's more specific. Same goes for categorizing by genre, topic, author,... If you need examples of comics about World War Two, gothic horror novels or Brazilian folklore characters then categories for these topics are needed. Especially to avoid people creating articles that we already have. Categorization should also be justified within the article text itself and have enough examples. For instance: "Fictional narwhals" is not going to list many examples, while "Fictional sea mammals" would open more possibilities. There are probably famous groups of eight people in fiction to warrant "fictional octets", but I doubt whether there will be enough. That's why I wouldn't make such a category. In some cases it's difficult to count. Are The Three Musketeers a quartet, because D'Artagnan is actually one of them? Are The Marx Brothers a trio (Groucho, Harpo, Chico), a quartet (with Zeppo) or a quintet (originally there was Gummo, but he never made it from the stage to the films)?
2. Many tales originally had no titles, that's true. However they all received a title when they were written down by folklorists. And even on this site, when deciding over a title, there are still redirects to point people to the correct page in case of different titles, spellings, and so on... Many articles about folk tales are sometimes about almost the same story, only with a few key differences based on the storyteller or country where it was told. In the end whether a tale is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" or "The Youngster Who Yelled Wolf" doesn't matter. The story is about a child and a wolf and they are mentioned in the title of the Wikipedia article, so "Child characters in literature" and "Fictional wolves" are the categories needed. I know The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids as "The Wolf and the Seven Little Goats", for instance. Same story, different name.
3. Judging whether an article/category is needed is not my personal job. There are enough users worldwide who patrol articles and keep a close watch. If something is ripe for discussion then it will be nominated and discussed sooner or later. If I have something to say about it then I will come in. If not, then I mind my own business. In some cases I have the impression an article is just pandering to people within a certain niche without much impact on overall society. Do we, for instance, need articles about every Pokémon character, every Batman character, all main characters of a long-running TV soap? On the other hand I'm confident that these articles, IF well written and sourced, can be of interest to other people, therefore I don't mind them. All I try to do is be responsible for my own work. When in doubt about something I ask others for advice.
4. This one speaks for itself. - User:Kjell Knudde (19:45) November 8, 2015 (CET).

And finally, 5. Let's respect English usage, as I discussed in the passage on dictionary meanings. The Young Man and the Swallow is all about the young man, his foolishness and false deductions. He and the swallow are not a duo in the dictionary definition. The most one could claim is that a fictional swallow is involved because of the fable's connection with the proverb discussed in the article. "The Miller and his Son" (not all versions even mention the donkey in the title) are a duo and the moral relates to their social behaviour, their responses to criticism. The donkey is not a necessary player because, as you imply when discussing another fable, any other mcguffin would have done.

I am making two points here. First, that it is not useful to count in elements of the story that play no active part; second, that you cannot treat the English language in the cavalier way you are suggesting, it only confuses the issue. My suggestion is that you stick to categorising individual elements of the story where it is useful and that you steer clear of dubious and controversial categories involving duos and trios that muddy the issue. Where I or other editors disagree over categories, it will be up to you to discuss the point on the talk page, not via reversion. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed with almost every change so far and have even added some, eg Fictional trees under The Fir and the Bramble and Fictional plants under The Gourd and the Palm-tree. However, I have noticed that you have missed categorising the occupation of Bird-catcher/Fowler, a country occupation since Classical times and persisting, so far as I remember, so far as 1840 in Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. I'm not suggesting you create a category just for that craft but one that takes in other country occupations. It makes sense if you're going to categorise all the fable and folklore entries. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I decided to finish all the work on the fables in one session. First I did the familiar ones (there are many about common animals, such as dogs, cats and lions), then went to the more challenging ones (out-of-date historical professions, less common animal species, plants and trees). Thanks for the appreciation and the additions. As much as I would like to categorize fictional fowlers/bird-catchers the profession doesn't even have its own page on the site. I could also only find three examples of fictional fowlers for now (The Bird-catcher and the Blackbird, The Fowler and the Snake and, of course, Papageno (who doesn't even have his own article)). Hardly enough to warrant a subcategory of its own. That's why I categorized them under "Fictional hunters". - User:Kjell Knudde 14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, Gasoline Alley (radio) and The Talk of Gasoline Alley are two separate programs. The Talk of Gasoline Alley is a modern radio program dating from about the 1970 or 80's to the present that discusses the history of the Indianapolis 500. It is hosted by Donald Davidson during the month of May. -Drdisque (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. thanks. - User:Kjell Knudde, 2:24 15 November 2015 (UTC).

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your addition of "Category:One-shot comics titles to this page, both because it is a non-existent category and because it would seem to be an inappropriate category if it did exist; this was a four-issue miniseries, not a one-shot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of comics creators may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:

• *[[Serge Le Tendre]] - (''[[La Quête de l'oiseau du temps]]''
• *[[Régis Loisel|Loisel, Régis]] - (''[[La Quête de l'oiseau du temps]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of comics creators may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:

• *[[Nigel Parkinson|Parkinson, Nigel]] - (''[[Olaff the Madlander]]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC) - Thanks, the same! - User:Kjell Knudde, 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This is not true. Yps currently puplishing in Germany. the next magazin comes in January 2016: http://yps.de/ --Natsu Dragoneel (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then I'll change it back again, regarded you can provide a source. - User:Kjell Knudde, 0:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope we can also find a word for group of 11 or 13 to exist. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice, but I don't think there are enough examples of groups of 11 or 13 people in fiction. - User:Kjell Knudde 12:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, after closing your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_30, I followed this up with related proposals at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016 January 9 (and a few speedy proposals).

There are of course lots more "in popular culture" categories and pages that are not people-related. You might like to start at the top, Category:Topics in popular culture, and work down. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a number of items, along with references to List_of_anti-war_films.

In many cases, the references were the url to a Google Book link. I though you might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

http://reftag.appspot.com/

I used it as an example for the reference for Das Boot.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more restrained in what you categorise as a "Cultural depiction". The criteria for putting something in a category are even more stringent than for a "in popular culture" section, it has to be the kind of WP:DEFINING characteristic that you'd mention it in the first paragraph of the article, not a passing appearance in Bill & Ted. So it should be restricted to biopics about the person, that kind of thing - usually films will mention the person in their name. Please have a read of WP:DEFINING and WP:Overcategorization before adding any more such categories, I almost deleted the Amelia Earheart one until I found some suitable films to go in it. And to be honest, this kind of stuff is not the most urgent thing to do with your time - have a poke around WP:WikiProject Film or other Wikiprojects to see what work is needed, the film cleanup list is here (big file, may be easier to download it and view it as a spreadsheet).Le Deluge (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cultural depiction is the appearance of a certain person in a work. The work should either be about him/her or have him appear as a central character to the plot. In Bill & Ted these historical characters are part of the plot of those episodes, thus it definitely counts as a cultural depiction. What I don't include are mere namedrops or references that otherwise have nothing to do with the plot or overall concept of the work. (Homer Simpsons mentioning Gerald Ford in a throwaway line: not useful. Homer meeting Gerald Ford in an episode: useful as a cultural depiction.) The categories and amount of works which feature said person ought to tell us something about his or her significance in folklore, popular culture or historical fiction. Amelia Earhart has enough biopics and appearances in time travel fiction to justify a 'cultural depiction' page of her own. Louis Blériot, on the other hand, has not. It's not that Blériot is less important than Earhart. It's just that he hasn't inspired as much pop culture depictions as her. Thanks for the suggestions of other things to do, but I've already contributed a lot to minimalistic film articles over the years. User:Kjell Knudde 19:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

We're not debating whether something is a "cultural depiction", but a "cultural depiction worthy of being categorised" - which means it has to pass WP:DEFINING. Have a read of that and WP:Overcategorization - if you still feel that you have a case then perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to gain a consensus on where to draw the line.Le Deluge (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestion and respect your politeness concerning pointing the matter out to me. In some cases, though, 'cultural depictions' categories are still being filled with articles at the moment, so it may be a bit premature to debate whether they are full enough and therefore relevant enough to be kept? If by then there are still 'Cultural depictions' categories about certain people that may warrant debate then I'll be grateful to join the discussion and even accept certain deletions if there aren't enough articles in a certain category (at this moment) to justify its existence on the site. I'd would also like to thank you for tracking down more articles about Amelia Earhart for her 'Cultural depictions' category. Feel free to do so too with other too minimalistic 'Cultural depictions' categories. Sincerly, and with all respect. User:Kjell Knudde 0:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).

This isn't about how full a particular category is. It's about not assigning a category based on a fleeting appearance in a film/cartoon. Have a read of WP:Overcategorization and WP:DEFINING, categories should be assigned to an article with restraint and not like confetti. It looks like we'll have to take this to WP:WikiProject Film.Le Deluge (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've also made at least one apparently-erroneous addition. You added "Cultural depictions of Daniel Boone" to The Last of the Mohicans, even though he's mentioned nowhere within the article. Please be more careful. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not to pile on but I undid your Cultural Depiction of George Washington edit at The Patriot since George Washington only appears briefly in the film, which follows Mel Gibson's character in the central plotline.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional characters who are able to fly, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blondin et Cirage, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Blondin et Cirage, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional dandies, 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. JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent additions/corrections to articles on WWI songs! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about Argentina, 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. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please define in the category article what the new category is to contain exactly, because "song" is a broad term and needs a definition, and "about Jesus" the same. What makes a song "about Jesus", compared to "related to Jesus"? How does the new category relate to other categories? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your addition "A list of all songs with lyrics about Jesus Christ ...", and can tell you that will be too many to be useful. Also: it's not a list, it's a category. If the article List of songs about Jesus existed, we would have a better understanding. Compare Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, where the scope is clearly defined by existing articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for now it will do. As soon as the category overreaches 200 examples subcategories might become neccessary or an even more specific introduction. - User:Kjell Knudde, 15:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Kjell Knudde, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 10:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been over this before. Graphic novels do not have "debut" years. Those categories are for things that begin in those years, not for things that were published in their entirety in that year. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]