User talk:KatVanHuis

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constructivist architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Stirling. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant tram moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Restaurant tram, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Restaurant tram

Hello, KatVanHuis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Restaurant tram, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Restaurant tram has been accepted

Restaurant tram, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-metro moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Semi-metro, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Semi-metro has been accepted

Semi-metro, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi KatVanHuis. Thank you for your work on Tram with suspended articulation. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work. The lead could benefit from being more explanatory. The first sentence is unclear other than saying what it is unlike. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an assessment of an article

Hi there! I noticed you've assessed articles for the Trains WikiProject before, so I'd like to request an assessment of an article into which I've put a lot of work: 2999 Lady of Legend. I'd really appreciate an article assessment, as it was rated start class when it was first created and the article has come a long way since then. Thank you for your time, and no worries if this is not possible. Thanks! MelonLost (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Your recent editing history at Link light rail shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SounderBruce, I have to strongly disagree here as anyone can see that I didn't start with reverting and anyone can see that I have started a dialogue on March 9th, and also that as of yet my last reply on March 12th has remained unanswered. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help with 2999 Lady of Legend I really appreciate your feedback and cannot thank you enough for your help. MelonLost (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I think the collaboration went really smooth, and I'm also content with the result: a much better flow of the article which makes it easier to read. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Light train

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

Article topic appears to be a neologism and is not used in the sense of the article by any sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sub31k (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Light train for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sub31k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

It's one thing for you to make your own walled garden with nonsense terms like "semi-metro" or "pre-metro", but you do NOT have the right to hijack and disrupt other articles to promote your pet cause. You've been edit warring to add your fake terms into Link light rail and Muni Metro, among many other articles; you blatantly violated consensus to restore The Hague Semi-metro against a closed discussion with unambiguous consensus to merge, and now you're targeting Passenger train too. You've gone too far. If you do not stop your one editor crusade against all consensus, I will be taking you to ANI so your edit warring, WP:IDHT behavior, POV pushing, and sealioning can be addressed by the larger community. Wikipedia operates by consensus. There was clear consensus that the light train article should be deleted. You do not get to simply copy and paste it into another article without even the slightest attempt to actually integrate it with the rest of the article. That is hijacking, which is a blockable offense. There was a clear consensus in multiple places that your fake terms should not be included in the articles, as you are engaging in original research to get your pet terms included in articles where no sources have made that connection. I can list more examples of your poor (if not outright sanctionable) conduct in the past few months if this isn't enough for you. All of this needs to stop. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trainsandotherthings, this is a lot all at once and that's alright. But threatening is not alright. Everyone is equal at Wikipedia. I'm always explaining my additions and (given enough time) I always reply when other editors share their concerns.

For your main point: I did trim down and made some text adjustments before adding the "light-weight" topic to Passenger train.

Additionally:

If "semi-metro" or "pre-metro" were nonsense terms, they would not appear in secondary sources.
The discussion at "The Hague Semi-metro" was closed by the same account as the account that started the discussion. This account did this without even one single reply to my concerns. How is that even close to reaching a proper consensus?

KatVanHuis (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edmonton LRT. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This is contested material and as yet you do not have consensus to include it. Meters (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo was that the consensus was to include the term "semi-metro", then it was Boldy edited out, so I Reverted it and a Discussion van follow. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You have been trying to add this term for almost a year now, and you have been undone at least eight times, by at least five different editors. Meters (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think 7 months counts as a status quo. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I think at least eight attempts by you to add it is edit warring. Meters (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring refers to at least 3 similar edits within 24 hours. My edits were more spread out and I always have provided an explanation. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the bright-line rule WP:3RR. As WP:EDITWAR says, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." You have been told this before. Your previous templated edit warring warning from user: SounderBruce says: Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. user:Trainsandotherthings also commented about your edit warring over the term "semi-metro". Meters (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The templated warning by SounderBruce was prematurely done, as one can still see in the version history. However I chose to start a discussion after that warning.
I don't remember Trainsandotherthings to contribute in any of the pages concerning the topics "semi-metro" and "premetro" and calling these term fake is not helpful neither true.

Most times I take the initiative to go to the Talk pages, many times these discussions become stale. Whether that's done on purpose or not is hard to tell, but it certainly blocks a consensus. What's peculiar is that only since late March 2025, there's a lot of opposition to include the topic "semi-metro", while earlier it was almost none. KatVanHuis (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged here, I will add that Meters is correct on the definition of edit warring. Doing it in slow motion doesn't make it not edit warring. When an edit is disputed, the proper action is to start a talk page discussion. And if the consensus is against your preferred revision, then you just have to accept it and move on. I've participated in discussions which closed with consensus against my preferred revision. It sucks sometimes but that's just part of life. I accepted the consensus and moved on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retro style automobile edit revert

Just wanted to let you know why I reverted your edit on retro style automobile, since my explanation in the edit description got cut off. The sources you provided both describe cars which either take on the role of a past model (Hilux Champ and Kijang) or take a couple of styling cues from a past model (C4 and GS), but neither of those things make those cars true "retro style" designs. See the quote from the Citroen source for example, which says that they "do slightly resemble the GS (below). Check the side glass shape, the inward-pointing LED lamp outlines, the tall skinny wheels. Even the high ground clearance, if you yanked the lever between the GS's front seats to put it into raised-suspension rough-ground mode. OK, maybe it's just us…". Most new cars take some design cues from past models, or from the brand's general historical design language, but that alone doesn't make them retro styled. And look at the quote from the Hilux Champ article where they say "The inspiration for the Hilux Champ, however, goes back further. “The root of the idea for the IMV comes from the Toyota Kijang,” says Dr. Jongusuk, referring to Toyota’s original super-affordable pickup for southeast Asian markets from 1976. Also known as the Tamaraw, you can see the resemblance in the basic utilitarian form of the newer truck. Like the Kijang/Tamaraw, the Hilux Champ is set to spread all over the world". This quote describes how the Kijang and Champ are similar in their purpose and market, not that the Hilux Champ tried to explicitly emulate the visual design language of the Kijang. If I had to guess, much of the stylistic similarities come from the fact that both are trying to be cheap and utilitarian, and that breeds a certain type of design. TKOIII (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TKOIII and thank you for extensive reply.

I think the term "retro style" is broader than a brand like Mitsuoka that focusses on the use of chrome to create a more classic style. The article itself has only a very brief description of the meaning: A retro-style automobile is a vehicle that is styled to appear like cars from previous decades. Often quoted examples are the Mazda MX-5, which referenced the Lotus Elan and the New Beetle, which referenced the Volkswagen Beetle. Both are very easy to recognise as cars from their own period (late 1980s and late 1990s), but are considered "retro cars" nonetheless for referencing models from previous decades.

On the Toyota example: I'm glad that you see the stylistic similarities indeed since both are designed to be cheap and utilitarian. As presented, the Hilux Champ doesn't look much like other contemporary Toyota's. It is in the same league as the latest Ford Bronco which doesn't look like most contemporary Ford models.
On the Citroën: Top Gear explains (by summing all design cues) how the 2020 (the 2025 lost its GS inspired front) references the GS. In a similar approach, with the Ford Bronco and the Citroën C4, the designers have admitted to look at previous generations. Why treat them differently in the article? One journalist even criticises the latest C4 to look more like a GS than other contemporary Citroën models.

KatVanHuis (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, and yes a "retro style" automobile as a concept can encompass an incredibly broad array of cars outside of the cars people think of as explicitly retro designs. However, the list in the article is titled "examples of retro style automobiles" and is not meant to be exhaustive. I think it's important that it should highlight the most clear and notable examples of retro style designs, rather than any design that has some claim to being inspired by cars of the past, especially since you can broaden that definition to include a substantial chunk of all current cars on sale. For instance, look at design features like the kidney grilles and Hofmeister kink on BMWs. These are design traits which BMW has been carrying forward on their models for decades, and any current BMW which has them is adopting a "retro" stylistic element. However, I don't think it would benefit a reader's understanding of the topic to put 90% of new BMW models in the retro style article. TKOIII (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TKOIII, for sure the list does not need to be exhaustive. And I guess we agree that it should include the most notable examples. Since the C4 has been pointed out by journalists as having design elements of the GS, predating it by 5 decades, it is notable ans should be included. I only added 3 sources in the English languages, but I could add a dozen or more in different languages.

I think your BMW example is good reference, which I fully agree to. However, especially with the C4: the previous generations, as well as the Xsara and the ZX, don't show (and are not commented by journalists) as having design cues from the past. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to draw the line of notability is highly subjective in this case, and although I wouldn't consider them notable, I feel it wouldn't quite be fair for myself alone to tell you not to add them. If you want to add them back you can feel free and we can let other editors decide if they rise to the level of notable. TKOIII (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I like the image gallery you added to the article comparing the cars with their inspirations, I think that was a good addition. TKOIII (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TKOIII and thank you for your compliment.

When talking about notability in Wikipedia, it usually concerns the availability of reliable sources, which in the case of the C4 are plentiful. Let's meet in the middle and leave the Toyota out until someone else feels the need to include it. KatVanHuis (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, especially since I do feel like the Citroen has a stronger claim to being retro style than the Toyota based on the sources. TKOIII (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flexity

Thank you for collaborating on this, Kat. Question: who did design the Flexity if not Bombardier? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 13:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome SCHolar44 and likewise: the text flows much better now. The company that designed it is from Germany, but I need to do some research first because I forgot the name. I'll add that to the article when I find out. KatVanHuis (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! SCHolar44 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-metro information and User Lightmetro regarding terminology.

Please see Matguy7071 response to Lightmetro removal and personal "consensus" on Semi-metro terminology, origins and usage today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matguy7071 Matguy7071 (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matguy7071, thank you for pointing out your essay on the history of the term "semi-metro" in the US. I even discovered documents about the topic that I hadn't discovered yet: that's great.

The perceived consensus that is mentioned, likely refers to this talk page. However after July 19th, the discussion became stale, so no consensus has been reached.

About the guideline that is mentioned:

More importantly: indeed MOS:NEO mentions neologisms. However, the lede states: Some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts, e.g. claim in law. For sure one should be able to mention "semi-metro" in an article about a specific light rail system.
Lastly, the lede continues :What matters is that articles should be well written and be consistent with the core content policies – Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. I always write my additions with these policies in mind.

KatVanHuis (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Delete this page once and for all already lol. Lightmetro (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Semi-metro for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll add my name to the deletion group. Lightmetro (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello KatVanHuis! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Mechanics of Wikipedia, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]