User talk:CAVincent

Hi @CAVincent! Indeed it is tough. But there is a section on religion. Before we get to any thing else, it is important that both of us do not go further in an edit war. So let's collaborate before going further. Yes, I honestly believe that we should focus on the Religion section to give more Naunce. Like further descriptions. Also, see [[Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The InfoBox honestly oversimplifies things. It would be better to use actual numbers rather than simply "Majority" and "Minority". I know editors can disagree on many things, which is why collaboration is crucial. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:I saw this just after 1:00 AM in my time zone, and I'm not going to spend much time responding before I go to bed. However, I'd strongly suggest that you move any discussion to the article's actual talk page, and not try to conduct it on my talk page. I'll see it there, and I'd like other editors to be involved or at least seeing it. Here is not the appropriate place. CAVincent (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::CAVincent, that is a great suggestion and the right thing to do Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Great. To be clear, I’m fine if a consensus supports the change. It just seems like a significant enough change to need a discussion. CAVincent (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

::::CAVincent Could you please give me instructions how to move this discussion to the article or do it yourself please? I'm not an expert on these things. I find it very very complicated, even when getting instructions. I am not a coding expert by any means (Even on Wikipedia). Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::1) Go to the Americans article. 2) At the top left of the page, you'll find a tab labelled "Article" and a tab labelled "Talk". (For me this is the same on both phone and laptop.) Click on Talk. 3) You're on the article's talk page! Sometimes, a subject you want to discuss already has a section for the discussion. If not (as in this case), at the top right of the screen is a button for "New section". Click that and start discussing. CAVincent (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::What I meant was, moving this from your talk directly to the talk on the Americans article Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Uh, no, don't do that. By "move (the) discussion", I meant have the discussion there and not here. CAVincent (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know if you understand, what I meant was, take what is already existing on this page, and move it to the Americans article. I won't be able to do it right away as I am on a train and getting picked up. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Gulf of America redirects there. That's the first use on the page. MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says it should be bold. What reason do you have other than, "yeah, no" for removing the bold? --Onorem (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says "Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section" (emphasis added). This is not at the beginning of a section, and honestly it just looks weird to me. CAVincent (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems like any random editor can create a new category, and impose it as widely as he wants. It then takes a lot of effort to remove a Category. I am beginning to think we maybe need to make new Category creation harder. What are your thoughts? I am not even sure how a general discussion could be created and even less sure how agreement could be brought. One current problem is if an article is in a 1 article Category that does not apply you pretty much have to take it to CfD to have the article removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

{{talkback|User talk:Ernsanchez00|Questions on Categories|ts=20:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Should we take this editor to ANI? Lost in Quebec (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Your edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kjell_Knudde&diff=prev&oldid=1284356345 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Bragg&diff=prev&oldid=1284357323 here] are not civil. If you have a issue with Kjell Knudde's edits, then it would help everyone if you explained what they were, and it makes Wikipedia a more pleasant place if you addressed the issue rather than giving abuse to the editor. Don't you think? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Seconded, it's best to focus on the edits themselves, though I think you may have a point with some of the categories like "Category:American political music groups." What makes a group "political" ? That's vague and could certainly be nominated for deletion. Valenciano (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)