User talk:Pknkly

My Helpme Requests My Sandbox My To Do

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pknkly.

Please look at

Could be a common problem with railroad articles.--

WP:LOTM) 04:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thought we were limiting scope to Chicago and Chicago metropolitan area. I've been deleting Chicago Project tags from articles that are outside of the counties given within the Chicago metropolitan area article. Yes, I think you are stretching. The active members (I think there might be seven with some super members - you) can't even keep up with the Chicago/Chicagoland scope much less Illinois and possible Indiana. I would stay focused on Chicago/Chicagoland and build a good foundation of well understood processes that are well documented (i.e., easily understood by the general membership) and followed. Once the current project tasks, that are within the Chicago/Chicagoland scope, are running smoothly we could collaborate with Illinois or Indiana Projects by helping them develop and document their processes. Thanks for asking my opinion. Pknkly (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see the relevance of including all productions at the entertainment venues unless they pass some sort of notability threshold. In my opinion,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories as it is now and then make changes. Test changes will be done along the way. So, I'll create a category category:Entertainment events Chicago, Illinois and category:Entertainment events in Chicago metro area, Illinois.Pknkly (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If the event is notable enough for an article, we should probably tag it. No one else is going to watch the articles and it is the only way they will show up at

WP:LOTM) 16:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That makes very good "Wiki sense". I'll hold onto what you just said and place into into a section within

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories that will give Chicago Project guidelines for categorization. Pknkly (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. find a category name that other geographic areas are using and make the proper subcat. Either events or entertainment events I am not sure. Look around.--

WP:LOTM) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK Pknkly (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows the namepace within which there are WikiProject Chicago pages that are within the scope of the project. The code (e.g., PSP001L) is used to represent "Main namespace List page that is within the scope of the Chicago Project". By using the code the need to repeatedly use the long term is omitted.Pknkly (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some categories are template assigned. E.g., at

WP:LOTM) 05:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This page is taking me too long to figure out. I don't like pages that I can not figure out by a

WP:LOTM) 05:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hopefully by the end of the development there will be a more concise lead. I will try and make a very technical document be as intuitive as the other technical documents (e.g., Wikipedia:Disambiguation or Wikipedia:Categorization ). Right now I'm going through a discovery process and dummping what informatin I find into the article. I hope others will help. The article is going to be very long. I plan to include a description of each type of category that is within the scope of the Project, how they are created, and how they are maintained. I'm documenting how things are done now with suggestions for improvements where there is a gap in an implied process or category structure. Pknkly (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work.--

WP:LOTM) 06:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• It appears that you are like me, and have a love for precision. However, I'd reccomend dropping all the "PSC", "PSP" 00XX stuff - most people will find that hard to remember and later in the document won't be able to follow. Once you distill it, I think you guys will be in a very good position to keep on top of your assessments. By the way, Indiana's default-importance run is done - see 993 edits. (They only categorized into mid or low, everything else was left alone). Let me know if you want to try this for CHICAGO. You guys have 11,035 articles of unknown importance - I'm sure Xenobot would lighten the load. –xeno^talk 16:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your comments. Please see

Improving readability. I recognize the need to improve readablity but don't know how to get there. Pknkly (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• FYI latest tagging run is done. See User talk:Xeno#Chicago tagging [1] for some notes. –xeno^talk 02:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen

WP:LOTM) 02:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanksofr the heads up. Pknkly (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the page at Wikipedia talk:What is an article? it looks as though you initiated the development of a page about the definition of an "article". The page evolved into a very well written document. With it and the wp:categorization document I built up a good Wiki vocabulary. However, everywhere I look, "article" is grossly misused, relative to the definition given in "What is an article?". That misuse is spread far and wide by developers. To me it seems that the misuse is so great that it renders the wp:What is an article? page obsolete. I wish that was not the case. Here is an example: Category:Template-Class articles - there isn't a single article, infered or otherwise, in this category list, but its title says there are. I go crazy when the title says "article" and its filled with talk pages, images, projects, portals, or even talk pages. It seems to me most people have started to use "article" to mean any namespace basic page and sometimes it is even a talk page. In one document I used the word "page" and it baffled people to such a degree that it as changed to article! Do you see the same thing? Should anything be done about it? If this has been brought up before, please direct me to the page. Somebody said it was brought up before but could not remember where. Pknkly (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This type of thing used to bug the hell out of me, but

not so much anymore. Main namespace pages already are denoted by an 'article' tab. Not sure if much more than that is needed. --mav (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

look at to do75.21.192.115 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I can't take credit for starting the project, just for reviving it. It is now active and with you and a few more could be a thriving project. Keep up your efforts.--

No I haven't and as a project member I should - so I will. I'll start my Wiki sessions with a glipse at

WP:CHIFTD forward. I'm totally immersed in category related activity. Its what interestes me. My obsession with category tasks has been so intense that I'm even dropped Chicago off my watchlist! Good thing other project members are on it. Pknkly (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for visiting the current

WP:LOTM) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Tony this goes back to documenting the Chicago Project categorization scheme. Unless its documented it like trying to guess what needs to be done. Please see

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Categories for encyclopedic articles, please change it. I really don't want to guess anymore. Pknkly (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is contrary to common practice and accepted procedure to have an article both in a category and one of its subcats. All I am saying is that it is perceived as wrong to both a category and subcats on an article. An article in both

WP:LOTM) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That common practice seems to be based on a lack of understanding of distinguished categories. That lack of understanding seems to lead to the perception of something being wrong when a page is within both a category and a subcategory that is within the category. Please see my support for use of

distinguished categories. Pknkly (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I stand corrected in general. However, I see little reason for

WP:LOTM) 07:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see Categorization scheme section where I would like to have all the discussions about the scheme in case others become interested. The scheme also depends on the use of the admin category. Please review and comment on that section as well. Pknkly (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Wuhwuzdat#Chicago tagging - thanks. –xeno^talk 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you visit

]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Chicago content categories, 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. DexDor ^(talk) 12:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]