User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 026

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
BrownHairedGirl's Archive
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Sabah/Sarawak relations[edit]

Category:Sarawak–Malaysia relations was included in the Category:Sabah–Malaysia relations discussion, and should be merged into Category:Federalism in Malaysia as well. As it covers the same articles, it simply needs to be deleted. Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. It was not listed at the top of the CFD nomination, so I did not spot it.
I now see that it was listed, but below the nomination, and in a small font size, and after 3 of the 5 other participants had made their contributions.
I'm not happy about this; it's very hard to see that the discussion amounts to a genuine consensus to delete the second category.
However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I'm going to assume that if it had been listed, editors would have viewed it in the same way as the categ which was listed. But that's only a best guess, so if any editor challenges that deletion it will have to be restored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it when it was first added either. It is however, basically exactly the same category, which is why I thought it was a reasonable addition to the CFD. I don't see any way in which your assumption doesn't make sense. Regards, CMD (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manual merge[edit]

Dropping you a note to let you know the above has been closed. - jc37 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer.
I sure learnt a lesson with that one, about how editors speed-read nominations. I should have made it much clearer that I was proposing a selective merge, and will take more care in future to flag such things prominently.
And congrats for helping to shift some of the CFD backlog. It had been growing horribly long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yw.
and nod. been a bit distracted of late : ) - jc37 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RMIT University[edit]

Hi. Just saw your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 16#Category:RMIT University. Would it be possible for you to give a rationale of some sort? I know the vote count was heavily in favour of renaming, but I thought my arguments were pretty strong and no one even tried to refute them. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the discussion but reading it I was almost leaning to "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" but after some research, I've found that "RMIT University" is the common name. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for your comments. I closed the discussion as I did because a) there was a clear supermajority (5–2) in favour of renaming the category to the full name; b) there was no policy-backed strong argument which added more weight to one side. Please note that I closed the discussion which actually took place in the 13 days when it was open, and did not attempt to make a supervote.

The nominator's arguments in favour of a bare "RMIT" (without "University") were based solely on following WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, nobody supported the nominator's proposal. It was unanimously rejected on grounds of recognisability.

The arguments in favour of "Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology" were that: the expanded form was most widely understood by the general readership, and as the official name, it was not a a neologism. This is a legitimate argument per MOS:ABBR, which at WP:ACRONYMTITLE allows editors to consider several factors in deciding whether to use abbrevs in page titles. 5 of 7 participants in the discussion preferred this approach, and it would take a very strong policy-based argument to dislodge that consenus.

Jenks24 offered two potentially strong arguments in favour of keeping the title at "RMIT University": a) following the head article; and b) following the COMMONNAME.

The first point, of matching the head article, is commonly but not universally followed with categs; there have always been exceptions, usually relating to either the ambiguity of an abbreviation or its understandability as a title which appears without explanation in article's list of categories. In this case, an overwhelming supermajority preferred spelling it out, and there are no policy grounds to override that preference.

Jenks24's claim about COMMONNAME was unsupported by linked evidence, and mentioned only GScholar (without offering GBooks or Gnews as comparators). As such it was an assertion rather than evidence, and even as an assertion it was limited in scope. I attach a lot of weight to evidence of common usage if it demonstrably tries to assess global usage rather local or inhouse preference, and I much prefer that such evidence is clearly linked so that it can be checked and verified by others.

In this case, the claim was not presented in a checkable format, ... and crucially, after more than 3 days that assertion by Jenks24 was not endorsed by any other editor. So in summary: Jenks24 had a potentially strong argument, but lacked verifiable evidence, and was unsupported by any of the 6 other editors who participated in the discussion.

So I don't see how I had discretion to close this discussion in any other way.

Another discussion might reach a different conclusion if new evidence was presented which generated a different consensus, or where strong evidence provided overwhelming weight to one side. But that would be a different discussion to the one I closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very detailed explanation, I really appreciate it. I might start a new CfD on it in a few months and if I do I'll be sure to take your suggestions on board. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Glad it helped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses[edit]

Each and every time an "actresses" category has ever been brought to CFD in the past, the consensus has been clearly established that the gender separation is not warranted -- which means that any such category can be redirected or deleted on sight without requiring a new discussion each and every time. The Kuwaiti category, further, was an outdated CFD discussion that was very nearly a full month overdue for closure, not an active discussion.

As I pointed out previously, "actors" simultaneously serves as both a non-gendered term inclusive of male and female people who act and as a gendered term for the men alone, meaning that there's no possible way to structure a gendered separation without ghettoizing the women as being a subset of the men rather than the two being equal siblings of a common parent -- and thus the categories cannot be gendered without violating WP:CATGRS, because there's no way around making the female category a gender ghetto subcategory of the male one. (Unless, perhaps, you can think of some term that's synonymous with "actor" but not gender-specific, which can thus act as the common parent. But any gender categories have to be parallel siblings of a non-gendered common parent -- a female gender category cannot be a subcategory of a male gender one.)

But at any rate, since the consensus against "actresses" categories has already been established by numerous prior AFDs, if you believe that gender separation is warranted then the onus is on you to build a new consensus favouring a gender separation, not on me to ignore the fact that the current consensus both specifically deprecates it and specifically allows for it to be immediately undone without requiring a new discussion in each and every individual case. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Bearcat#Your_unilateral_emptying_of_actress_categories, where I had originally posted. That keeps discussion centralised in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

May I ask you to consider my reply on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_28#Category:Massacres_in_the_Palestinian_territories. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the response to you by User:ChemTerm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies of X[edit]

Not sure why you notified me. No one's going to adopt my suggestion. Your argument is going to easily prevail. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you because you made a proposal, and I had identified some concerns about that proposal. So I notified you in case you wanted to respond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to impose partition on all-Ireland organisation?[edit]

As you know, the Gaelic Athletic Association is an Ireland-wide organisation. Why have you reverted multiple edits so that GAA clubs in the six counties are placed in a separate sub-category to GAA clubs in the 26 counties, and the GAA clubs in Ireland category emptied other than for those two sub-categories which have nothing to do with how the GAA actually organises itself? Is there any reason why your edits should not be reverted? Brocach (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brocach, I disagree on the substance, for the reasons set out at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_26#Category:Gaelic_games_governing_bodies_in_Northern_Ireland.
However, the issue is not what view either of us holds on the merits of this category. The issue here is that if you believe a category should not exist, the solution is to propose its merger or deletion at WP:CFD, and discuss the matter to seek a consensus.
As noted in my warning on your talk page, you have been warned about this before. The tone of your reply here suggests that you did not read that warning before you deleted it as "garbage". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. My second note at Brocach's talk page was deleted with an even less civil edit summary :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not empty![edit]

The Guyana categories where you are requesting deletion are not empty, or will not be empty if the corresponding articles are added. See this quality and importance table:--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Guyana articles by quality statistics

They are empty right now, which is why I tagged them for speedy deletion. See Category:List-Class Guyana articles of Mid-importance, Category:Start-Class Guyana articles of Top-importance, Category:List-Class Guyana articles of Low-importance, Category:List-Class Guyana articles of Top-importance, Category:Stub-Class Guyana articles of Mid-importance, Category:C-Class Guyana articles of Mid-importance, Category:C-Class Guyana articles of Mid-importance.
They are also uncategorised, apart from those which I categorised.
If you want to keep these categories, then add them to the appropriate parent categories and amend the project's banner template so that it populates them. But as of now, these categories appear to have remained uncategorised and unpopulated since they were created 4 or 5 days ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am a Senior Editor II, I do not know how to amend the project's banner template, but I wish I did. User:Lorelei and I have recently put a great deal of effort into Guyana articles. Perhaps you can direct me to where I can learn about amending project banner templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can suggest a few places to ask for help:
  1. Template talk:WPBannerMeta
  2. User talk:Happy-melon, a very helpful editor who did a huge amount of work a few years ago on setting up the {{WPBannerMeta}} meta-template which handles these matters, and knows it inside-out.
  3. WT:COUNCIL, where there are usually several editors who know about the technicalities
One or other of those should find you an expert. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Thank you for the information. There are several WikiProjects where I would dearly like to make changes, but do not know how. I will follow up later. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who are not a wikipedian[edit]

Is it time to close this thing out, do you think? Far more heat than light being generated, it seems. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It's clearly headed for removal, although it might end up being merged rather than deleted. So a WP:SNOW close wouldn't be entirely clearcut.
Right or wrong, though, several, editors have explicitly said that they want to use the CfD as a place to vent, and those in favour of venting about this issue include some sober and respected admins such as John. There was a lot of upset about the previous speedy close, so if it was closed early, I'm pretty sure that it would be taken to WP:DRV, where there would be another meta-drama about a meta-drama.
So personally, I'd say that on balance it would be best to let it run its course. That way everyone who wants to vent can do so, and the discussion is all in one place.
The one admin action I would contemplate is splitting out that discussion to a subpage, as is often done at WP:ANI when one thread gets too huge. We're not quite there yet, but may get to that point before long.
Does that make sense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to see what you thought (as the admin involved in deleting several other similarly named, albeit "joke", categories). I am sure you are right as usual. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of amused to see the cat added a week after I created a userbox announcing that I was not a Wikipedian.[1] But I am not a Wikipedian either, so piling on was not an option. Apteva (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

various subdivisions CFD[edit]

I can live with that division. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reformatting the Web browser CfD items[edit]

LittleBen (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic categorisation[edit]

Re the discussion above.

Look at the ethnic categories which this person is in: African-American academics, African-American Christians, African-American lawyers, African-American memoirists, African-American United States presidential candidates, African-American United States Senators, American people of Kenyan descent, American people of Huguenot descent, American people of English descent, American people of Swiss descent, American people of Scottish descent, American people of Welsh descent, American writers of Irish descent, American writers of German descent.

I'm sure that this has developed in good faith, when something has gone wrong when a notable person's categorisation is dominated by an ethnic kaleidesope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass RM[edit]

I was wondering if what was being proposed was adding a lot of "list of"'s to names?[2] In general my preference is to keep article names relatively short. An article about Roanoke, Virginia, for example dropping Virginia for the article List of neighborhoods in Roanoke, Virginia, for example or List of mayors of Roanoke, Virginia. Both have kept the Virginia, but I would have dropped it, to keep the title shorter. Ditto for List of Tamil films of 1950. I would add 1950 or list of but not both. But that is just me - you will certainly find other views as well. By the way, India has many many thousands of films (produces 1,000/year)[3] Apteva (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the slow reply, but yes, that's the proposal. The RM discussion is now open at Talk:Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move.
I'm puzzled by your suggestion that "List of Tamil films of 1950" should include "1950 or list of but not both". Omitting "1950" would given no indication of its scope, and would not disambiguate it from all the other lists of Tamil films by year, which under your approach would apparently all be called "List of Tamil films", unless you wanted to ignore WP:NCLIST. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SETINDEX Apteva (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which says: "A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name". That's not the case here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pointed category changes[edit]

Can you look at today's pointy category changes to Naya Rivera or changes that just misunderstand the category structure as in Gerhard Ringel? Hmains (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the msg.
Gotta leave my desk now, but look in a few hours time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now even this. Sherri Saum. This editor is purely disruptive. Others would have to recheck every edit he does. Hmains (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a look. Here's what I make of JPL's changes to these articles:

Sherri Saum
Gerhard Ringel
Naya Rivera
  1. Removed her from Category:African-American actors. That's good, because the article doesn't say she is African-American. It accurately reports the (regrettably bloggy) source that she is quarter-AA (implying one AA grandparent).
  2. Added her to Category:American people of African-American descent. Looks good. if we trust that source.
  3. Added her to Category:American actresses. Seems uncontroversial that she is American and is an actress, so fine there.
  4. Added her to Category:American female singers. Again, seems uncontroversial. Is there any dispute that she is American, female, and a singer?
So in conclusion, I don't see any disruption. JPL's categorisation is not flawless, but it is fairly good, and your allegation of pointiness looks very unfounded. I hope you'll withdraw it.
However, both of you missed the ball here. You both spent too much time looking at the categories, and to little time noting how those articles have much more serious flaws which should either have been fixed or tagged.
That's my take on it all, FWIW. As ever, YMMV :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to get under control various American people of x descent categories. It is amazing how many articles have been put in Category:American people of German descent without any mention in the text of the article that the person actually has German ancestry. In many of these cases it appears there was an assumption based on the last name. This is my main focus in these edits. I am paying attention to whether or not there is a bare mention of the fact of the alleged ancestry. Other things that come up are entirely secondary. The other is I am trying to end the huge overlap of ancestry and emigration categories. As the Ringel article shows some people are very hard to place in an emigration category. I generally do not try to make jusgements on the validity of these articles, just follow what the text says, or in all too many cases what it does not say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the issue of Gerhard Ringel the article describes him as German. It also lists his birth in 1919 in Austria, so it seems he emigrated from Austria to Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article describes" is not the same as "the sources say". Where an assertion in the article is unreferenced, it is a good idea to check further before categorising on the basis of that assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here [4] is a source, blogspot so maybe not the best, that says Ringel was a student at Charles University in Prague. So maybe he was not an Austrian emigrant to Germany. I am not sure what to do about that, it is a mess. Maybe I will find a better source, I really don't know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category:Ranma ½ characters closing[edit]

Did you mean to only delete Category:Cardcaptor Sakura characters and not the other four categoires in the CfD? —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. As a quick whatlinkshere check would have shows, the others are listed at WP:CFRD/W for processing. I processed one manually because it was a dual upmerge, which the bots cannot do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing not[edit]

Did you mean to say "I have no objection in principle" here? – Fayenatic London 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed mean that. Thanks for pointing out, and for kindly including the diff. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juventus Primavera players[edit]

Wouldn't it be more useful to fully delete rather than leave as a soft redirect? It's not only in the incorrect format for footballer articles, but we should discourage population. GiantSnowman 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman
AFAICS, it won't populate. If anyone tries adding Category:Juventus Primavera players using WP:HOTCAT, it will process the redirect. And if they add it manually, then one of the bots such as Russbot will catch it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Montgomery (historian)[edit]

He's still committed to creating fringe articles, see his other recent edits. And mine. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And aren't these edits a form of canvassing?[5] [6]. He isn't suggesting how people should !vote, but I don't think someone that involved should be sorting AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition[edit]

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Czech_elections#Presidential_Elections_prior_to_2013[edit]

Hello, seeing that you have contributed to the Template:Czech elections, I would like to invite you to share your view on inclusion of presidential elections prior to 2013 to the list. Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses[edit]

Per the content guideline WP:Cat gender and the ongoing rfc at WP:VPP#Actresses categorization, I have moved the existing actress cat's to cat's of Category:Actors. Until the guideline is changed, actress is not a proper category. Personally I can see the desire to have the category, mostly in cultures that do not recognize women's rights. But process is process. It is easier to move cat's than to create actress as a category. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reverted. This issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11, where the outcome was to allow these categories to be relisted.
There are several open CfDs on such categories; please do not pre-empt their outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? The guideline clearly states "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed". Until that sentence is changed, it is simply not appropriate to have a top level category called actresses, and any cat's that are either deliberately or inadvertently created as subcat's are in fact subcat's of actor, not actress. Let the process run its course - instead of assuming an outcome of overturning existing guideline. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete a category, take it to WP:CFD, and seek a WP:CONSENSUS. Do not just unilaterally empty a category out-of-process (or redirect it) when WP:DRV has explicitly sanctioned a relisting of these categories at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not deleting a category. I am applying a guideline. There is an ongoing discussion of this issue, and until it is changed, the guideline should be followed. There are thousands of editors who add articles to categories that do not exist. Creating[7] them to accommodate them is not what I would expect. For seven years this was not a category, and while discussion was going on it was created?[8] Apteva (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting them is effectively deleting them; the bots will soon depopulate them if redirected.
The category was created per the decision at WP:DRV to allow to categories to be relisted at WP:CFD. If you believe that the categories should not exist, then open a discussion at WP:CFD, and make your case, which include citing the existing guideline.
You clearly believe that your view on the merits of these categories is correct, and you entitled to believe that. But the way disagreements are handled on wikipedia is by seeking WP:CONSENSUS, not by acting unilaterally to prevent a consensus-forming process from reconsidering a decision when a deletion review has explicitly permitted its reopening.
As you can see, I re-created the category on 21 September, after being explicitly encouraged at DRV to do so in order to allow a CFD discussion. The RFC was opened nearly 3 weeks later, on 17 October.
You are the second editor to try redirecting it out of-process rather than having a CFd discussion, and if you persist in trying to undermined the deletion review, I will take it to WP:ANI and ask that you be restrained from doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen, that was the correct response, and the advice to "recreate" (edit it to change it from a redirect to a category) was ill advised, in my opinion - leading to hundreds of edits that would not likely have been made otherwise - edits that violate an existing editing guideline before that guideline is changed, if it ever even will be changed. Apteva (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it. You think that outcome of DRV was "ill-advised", so you feel entitled to ignore it.
That sport of approach could earn you a WP:BLOCK unless you back off and start seeking consensus.
I have already warned you about this, so if there is any further unilateral action I will take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any of the above. Though I do wonder: if there is currently an ongoing RfC as you note apteva, why would you take action while the RFC is still open? There is no deadline, after all. Once all the various discussions are done, if there have been conflicting consensual results, then there is nothing stopping you from starting a subsequent RfC to resolve the inconsistencies. Merely a thought. - jc37 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, jc37.
There is an open RFC, and several open CFDs.
I know of no precedent for unilaterally deleting categories at any time because an editor thinks they contravene of a guideline; such things are brought back to CFD for a discussion, or tagged for speedy deletion if that course is approved by an admin.
Sadly, this editor seems to think it appropriate to delete or redirect categories before discussions have been closed. At best this is premature; at worst it impedes the consensus-forming process by removing some of the paths through which editors may become aware of the existence of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see at any time in the history of Wikipedia that actresses was ever a category. What I do see is that for years it was a redirect. Categories are constantly moved around without the need for an RfC or a CfD. But creating it as a populated category instead of a redirect so that it can be discussed for deletion? Put it back to being a redirect and continue the discussion of deleting it. That seems to be the best course of action. Apteva (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Redirecting a category is functionally the same as deleting or merging it, and that requires a consensus at CFD. The previous deletion decision was overturned at DRV, and is now null and void.
If you want to delete it or redirect it, then simply: open a WP:CFD discussion. That's all.
Now, please stop wasting my time. Either seek a consensus for deletion/merger/whatever, or let the category stand. Choose whichever you like, but stop moaning about your inability to delete/redirect without a consensus to remove the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky talk page history as seen in popup[edit]

Hi BHG, You are now a member of the exclusive club of "Editors whose talk page history displays oddly as a popup from my watchlist"! Corporate Minion was the first - see User_talk:Corporate_Minion#Quirky_talk_page_history_as_seen_in_popup but has now left the group (I don't know what fixed the problem), and Bearcat was the second, then DGG. The edit summaries don't wrap until way beyond the outline of the popup box (or, in Bearcat's case, only about 4 characters beyond it). It doesn't really matter, in that the edit summaries are still legible, but something isn't working quite right and I don't see what characteristic is triggering it. Thought you might like to know! I'm reassured by the fact that another editor reports seeing it too. PamD 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably caused by an edit summary which contains a long string without whitespace. HTML usually wraps only on whitespace, so if that's not there it won't wrap.
Anyway, I dislike being in any exclusive club, so I hope that the effect passes soon :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People from X[edit]

I made a proposal using a noun-based refernece to the country. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_12#Luxembourgian. Would like a comment from you there. ChemTerm (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steampunk music deletion[edit]

Per the suggestion in the Deletion Review page, I am contacting you first to ask you to reverse the deletion of this category and reopen the discussion, as many of us who used and work on that category were not even aware it was up for deletion until it was already gone. The whole process seems to have gone by in under 30 days during a time period when many involved in the scene were busy. Thank you. Blackfyr (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackfyr
If you look at WP:CFD, you will see that the normal time for a category to be listed for discussion is 7 days. There has been a backlog of CfD closures (see WP:CFD/W), so the category was open for discussion for 25 days, more than 3 times the norm.
The category was clearly tagged throughout that period as being up for deletion, and given the length of time for which the discussion was open, it is odd that you say that the editors who "who used and work on that category" were unaware of it.
As to reversing the deletion, please see the discussion above under at #Category:Steampunk_music, where I have explained at length why the category was deleted, and have also offered to relist the category if editors can produce the refs in reliable sources to support this form of categorisation.
I would be grateful if you took the time to read that discussion carefully before commenting further. I'm sorry if that sounds a bit rude, but I have already had one editor respond without reading, and that is not a productive use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. Somehow I had managed to miss that set of exchanges in your talk page. Being a Steampunk DJ, the list of steampunk artists was one of my resources to keep up on which musicians had been entering into this rather ill-defined genre. One of the problems with defining it is that so many other styles get blended into it. In fact, the entire genre (literarily, sartorially and musically) is a deliberate mixing up of things to fit a general aesthetic, which is, by its very nature, an amorphous thing.
Rather than continue to clog your talk page with this, though, I will contact the other editors to see what, if any, progress has been made on this. One question, though, if I may. Is there a way to get a dump of the contents of the previous page from before the deletion, so we have something to work from? Blackfyr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk-page stalker) The bot removed the category from these 21 articles and categories - hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That did help. Blackfyr (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bencherlite, that's not stalking. Thanks for helping out so quickly :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case you were not aware of the option, {{Wikipedia:TPS/banner|75}} (here) is available as a talk page banner giving a friendly general consent for this kind of intervention... – Fayenatic London 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
I wasn't aware of that v useful banner, and have just added it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the related section further up this page, I have re-listed the discussion at CfD 2012 November 14. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American actresses[edit]

Thankyou for your help with showing me how to notify projects on the CfD on American actresses. I hope it will generate more discussion but I am not holding my breath.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, I do quite a lot of notifications for CFDs I open. Sadly, it usually generates a very poor response.
But it is worth trying :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steampunk music[edit]

Hi there. You recently deleted this category, and I was wondering if I could get you to reconsider. In particular, could you take a look at the most recently deleted version of the category's talk page and see if any of the reasoning there would be enough to undelete the category, or perhaps lead to another solution? Thanks! —Torchiest talkedits 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Torchiest
Thanks for your message, and for the friendly and civil way you phrased it. I know that it can be frustrating to see the deletion of a page you would have wanted kept, so thank you for keeping that frustration in check!
My first response is that having reviewed the closure, I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus in that discussion that the genre was too ill-defined to make a viable category. I was only the closer, and since the lone opponent of deletion cited no policy argument to override the others, it was a clear delete.
It is very odd that you and some other editors chose to continue the discussion on the category's talk page after the discussion had been closed as "delete", because that was a page which had already been deleted, and was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G8 if recreated. If you think about it, it was a really silly place to post.
To be honest, most of the arguments presented on the talk page were weak. One editor suggested that it should have gone to AFD; but categories are not discussed at AFD, so that's silly. The same editor cited 3 sources in defence of hir view; not persuasive, because none is a WP:RS. The same editor argued that "only one of the regular respected moderators in the steampunk genre was able to offer his opinion" ... which again is wrong. The discussion was open for an exceptionally long 25 days (rather than the usual 7), and the category was properly tagged, so there was no barrier to any other editor commenting at the CFD.
The same editor had recreated the category immediately after it had been deleted in a deletion discussion, so its speedy deletion was perfectly valid.
You are entitled to take this to WP:DRV, but the only grounds I can see for overturning the decision would be if you had new evidence which was not considered in the deletion discussion. So ... here's my suggestion, to minimise bureaucracy. If you and/or other interested editors can produce evidence in reliable sources (not blogs or fansites) in support of your view, then I will restore and relist the category. If you have the evidence, then there's no point in using the time-consuming DRV process when we could go straight to a substantive discussion.
If you don't like that suggestion (or don't like my response to any evidence you produce), you are of course quite entitled to open a DRV anyway ... but this seems like the simplest way to decide what we do next.
How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only posted at the talk page because someone else had recreated it, and I thought I'd leave a message for the next admin that came along. I hadn't planned on taking any direct action on the matter until I'd discussed it with some other editors first to determine a good course of action. I had and have no plans for taking this to DRV, as I've always thought your close was appropriate based on the discussion that existed at the time.
I know you're one of the resident experts on categories, so I do have a question about the nominator's original point, which is that the category has no main article. Is that a valid rationale for deletion? My understanding is that categories can exist for which there is no article of the same title. I'll have to consult with the other editors concerned for sources, as at least one of them is more expert in this area that I am, but are you asking for sources showing that the concept of "steampunk music" is recognized, or something else? Thanks again. —Torchiest talkedits 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's rationale was partly that there is no main article, and I have not seen a consensus in other discussions that there is a requirement for the existence of a main article.
However, there is a widespread consensus that categories should be about something on which there could be a valid main article, or an intersection between two such topics. (e.g. Category:Mountains of Zambia is an intersection between two encyclopedic topics: Mountains and Zambia). There is explicit guidance in some cases (see e.g. WP:CATGRS) that an intersection category should only be created if the intersection is itself an encyclopedic topic, so for example we do not have a category which notes the intersection of Category:Lesbians and Category:Road accident victims.
In this case, it was the second part of the nominator's rationale which which a prima facie valid argument: that steampunk music is too ill-defined to make a viable category. Ill-defined and subjective categories are routinely-deleted (see WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE), so my approach to closure was that if that view was supported, then the argument for deletion was based in policy. (To take an extreme comparator, you can see why we would not have a Category:Uncool music; it would be wholly subjective. This was nowhere near such an extreme case, but I hope that the absurd example illustrates the principle).
My reading of the discussion was that it supported the view that the genre was to ill-defined. Nobody seems to be arguing that it is defined, but any evidence on that point would be relevant. Alternatively, it would appropriate to reopen the discussion is there was evidence in support of Andy Dingley's assertion that it iseasy to define and source the categorization of "the musicians of steampunk".
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)dl[reply]
Yes, thanks for the further clarification. I'm pretty sure there is evidence for that last assertion. I'll ask the other two editors to comment and bring some supporting sources here. —Torchiest talkedits 17:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good luck. Obviously I can't predict whether a relisted discussion would reach a consensus to keep on that basis, but that sort of new evidence would be enough to justify a relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm the one that restarted the page. I only restarted it after conferring with Andy Dingley; my first thought was to start a new page called "steampunk musicians", since it is much easier to define those musicians that identify as steampunk (see List of steampunk works#In music) than to define steampunk music itself, and then I thought we could have a sub-cat for genres within the category, as the category of Folk musicians does. But Andy thought the deletion was weak and suggested I recreate the page and challenge it directly; he thought that creating a new page might be seen as trying to do an end-around and might be considered bannable, so I took his advice. Sorry if I caused any trouble in the way I went about things.
I'm perfectly ok with and agree with Torchiest's suggestion then that a "Steampunk musicians" category be created in its place. I know a lot of the musicians that were in the previous category consider themselves first and foremost to be steampunk musicians, not darkwave or goth or whatever style they might play, and not having a category must seem a bit of a disenfranchisement. There have also been a number of articles, such as the big MTV article a few years back, that have mentioned several of the bands by name as being steampunk musicians (also almost every band on the List of steampunk works#In music page is already sourced, and I'm working on sourcing the others) so sourcing shouldn't be a problem. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonny, I'm afraid you got bad advice. Re-creating the category was always just going to lead to G8 speedy deletion. I am sure it was well-intentioned advice and that you took it in good faith, but for future reference the route to go is to discuss with the closing admin, and then if you can't agree a solution, take it to WP:DRV.
I'm not sure whether a new Category:Steampunk musicians would be regarded as a re-creation of Category:Steampunk music, but there's a good case for saying that since it contains roughly the same articles, it's much the same thing. (As I think may have been advised).
Anyway, I took a look at the sources in List of steampunk works#In music, and to be honest what I'm seeing so far isn't great. I know that its early days and you've got more work to do, but there is a real shortage of reliable sources there.
Good luck in developing the list, and do let me know how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a bad deletion from the outset. The idea that categories require a lead article is nonsense, especially when they're a sub-category of a category with a large lead article, with a specifically relevant section. Excluding a keep opinion because it was based merely on the outside world rather than policy doesn't seem to carry as much weight as inventing a fantasy policy to rely upon.
There was no consensus to delete. The fact that there was no clear consensus either way even after extending the run time is a further indicator. Yet (as is so often the case with CfDs) many editors were unaware of the CfD and didn't know of it until 'bots started deleting it from the member articles. After this, suddenly there's a lot more interest and we see three or four separate editors all in support of the category - yet this appears to have been ignored since and we see a dogmatic fallback on "there is no consensus, we have always been at war with Eastasia".
What's also ignored is the amount of damage that a category deletion like this causes, because the 'bots are on a hair trigger to remove inclusion in it (on an unwarranted timescale far faster than DRV could respond to). This isn't available from a single edit history, so is very difficult to recreate afterwards. Yet again, WP is about maintaining a status quo of infallible admins and civility than it cares about content quality.
It is trivially easy to define "steampunk music" for the purposes of WP categorization: simply subset musicians according to external sources placing them within the steampunk genre or community. Claiming that this is somehow hard to do is sheer WP:OR. It is hard to identify a genre of steampunk music as a style, but that's simply not the problem to be addressed here.
This was about as good a deletion as dieselpunk, when an article with over sixty references was deleted for not having references. Both represent a sheer inversion of WP policy against OR: they're WP setting itself up as arbiter of what does and doesn't exist, rather than faithfully reporting what established sources have already stated. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy, thanks for your comment.
    However, you don't seem to have read the discussion above. You say "idea that categories require a lead article is nonsense" ... but you overlook the fact that I agree with you on that point.
    Nor is it true to say that this was "extending the run time". If you look at the WP:CFD/W, and at its history, you'll see that there was a massive backlog at CFD. That's all -- a general delay in closure rather than any decision to extend.
    You say that such a category can be defined by: "simply subset musicians according to external sources placing them within the steampunk genre or community". Again, you obviously have not read my replies above to Torchiest and Jonnybgoode44.
    I am very willing to discuss my closure with editors, but I am not going to repeat myself. Please read the discussion above before posting here again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS You mentioned dieselpunk, so I went to look. I see that Dieselpunk was deleted at 3 separate AFDs, with more than 2 years gap between discussions, and a different closing admin in each case. Every time, the reason was the same: lack of coverage in reliable sources.
    I hope that Torchiest and Jonnybgoode44 succeed in finding reliable sources, but please don't complain here about that being a criterion. If you want to amend WP:RS, the place to do so is on that guideline's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to be misunderstood, then I suggest that you use a comment when closing XfDs. To close a CfD as merely "delete" implies that you agree with the nominator's rationale. This rationale had two parts: that categories requires lead articles, and that the genre is ill-defined. The first of these is based on an invented policy and also relies on the non-existence of the very section that the second part cites as evidence! The second confuses "musical genre" and "set of related articles".
Your analogy with "uncool music" is logically flawed. Steampunk music, like rockabilly or jazz music, has a number of simple defining conditions (and this simple statement of the category doesn't allow their implied members to be distinguished): music of the steampunk style, as defined by RS, performed by steampunks acting in character, or performed to an audience of steampunks within some steampunk-themed event. For all of these, the "steampunk" or "jazz" aspects have sourceable conditions that can define them. There is no such definition for "cool" music, merely subjectivity. If just one of these three conditions can't be easily met for steampunk (it's indeed true that the genre is ill-defined, and this is the only valid criticism of this category, even though it's far too weak to be reason for deletion) then there are still two others: most obviously and easily sourced, that of performing at recognised steampunk events.
The further flaw to this analogy is that "uncool music" is even less definable than "cool music". Anyone may (subjectively) term music as cool. but only if no-one does will it remain "uncool". I'll leave Popper to expand the rest.
You claim there was a "clear consensus" to delete. Yet of the four votes, only two editors supported either claim in the rationale. This is no consensus, let alone a "clear" one, it's merely a vote-counting populism. When it comes to the recreated article though, vote counting is out and the cabal falls back on an even more simplistic G4 to stifle debate. I have little faith in admins acting usefully and barely by acting to policy (which is different from quoting it when convenient). I doubt that this category will survive and it's certainly a waste to see Wikipedia as important or defining of what happens in the real world. I organise festivals of steampunk music, I don't find it particularly convincing for Wikipedia to tell me that it doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, closing a CFD involves a lot of ancilliary work, and more progress is made clearing the backlog if commentary is kept to a minimum. 90% of closures are uncontroversial, so require no further comment. This appeared to be one of those, so I kept it brief ... and when an editor queried it, I was happy to respond in much greater detail than I could have managed at closing time.
Anyway, back to this category. You say it's " a waste to see Wikipedia as important or defining of what happens in the real world". I'd go further: Wikipedia quite explicitly does not try to define anything in the real world. Like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a tertiary source: i.e. it attempts to summarise the current state of knowledge in reliable sources, and it is a core principle that we don't do original research.
So, as I offered to Torchiest: if there are reliable sources which you guys think support this category, I'll relist it. Otherwise, you still have the option of WP:DRV.
But I'm afraid I am not going to discuss the principles any further. All I'm interested in hearing now is that you guys have a list of reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a pretty comprehensive article about the difficulties of defining the genre that also lists a good number of groups that are widely perceived as being in the genre, as broad as it may be.
  • Here is a list of some of the most notable steampunk bands, which has a good amount overlap with those mentioned in the first article.
  • Here is an article that discusses the steampunk aesthetic in general, but also talks about the music, and again lists the same half a dozen or so bands mentioned in the previous two articles.
    Is that enough to restore the category? I can continue looking for sources if needed, but that seems like a pretty solid start. —Torchiest talkedits 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Torhiest
    Thanks for taking the time to produce those refs. As I said above, I am willing to relist the category for further discussion if you can produce references in reliable sources which make a prima facie case of answering the definitional and scope concerns raised in the previous discussion.
    If you want the relisting to be made on the basis of those 3 refs, I will do that. It is additional evidence not presented in the previous discussion, so it's definitely grounds for a relisting.
    However, before I do that, I want to suggest that you check whether the list so far is enough for you to want to proceed. (I say "suggest", because I mean just that: it's your decision).
    First, how well do these refs fit WP:RS? One of the pages is a blog entry, but blogs are not usually considered to be an RS. Only one (the MTV ref) unambiguously fits the RS definition.
    Secondly, when I look at the articles, I don't see much of a list of "musicians of steampunk", and certainly not a consistent list. For example, the MTV article only lists about 5 bands.
    So, what you have so far looks weak to me, and it seems to me that your best chance of getting a different outcome would be to have strong evidence. But it's not my job to cast a supervote, so if you want me to relist the category based on the sources above, I will do so. And if you want me to hang on while you look for more sources, that's fine too.
    Please let me know which you would prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see now that the first article is written by a member of one of the bands, so that might be viewed as primary, I suppose. I think the other two are pretty good, but let's hold off a little longer. I'll take another look for more sources in the next day or two. —Torchiest talkedits 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Lemme know if and when you want to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found a couple more good sources. Go ahead and relist whenever you're ready and I'll present my findings. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on expanding and sourcing the "List of steampunk works:In music" section; it should provide a good source for rebuilding the category. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • steampunk music
    Love the video! Tho I'm not so sure that it makes your point so well as it reinforces the raguments for deletion.
    Anyway, I'm off to do the relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted[edit]

I have re-listed the discussion at CfD 2012 November 14, to allow editors to present new evidence as discussed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Blackfyr (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derry cfd[edit]

I just saw you pop up on my watchlist so i thought I'd drop you a note while I was thinking about it.

I was intending to close the cfd, but no matter how many times I re-read it, my head was spinning.

Maybe you could take a look at the discussion, and perhaps at least clarify your thoughts?

Now that I'm leaving a note here, I'll drop a note at the nominator too. - jc37 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing a summary, but it ended up rather huge. :(
Sorry. Probably not much use as a summary.
I guess if I had to radically shorten it, I'd say this: a) There is no point in retaining duplicate categories. That merely confuses readers and editors. b) If editors want to rename some or all GAA categories, that should be done in the usual way by a renaming proposal, which starts from the status quo. c) If editors want to pursue that, it would be best to start with a wider discussion which considers the relationship between GAA counties and the administrative counties, possibly as an RFC. That way any decisions made can reflect a general principle rather than the passions aroused by the most difficult case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and well done. I closed it. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I like the closure, but above all I am glad to see it closed after 4 weeks. I don't think it's helpful to have so many CFDs remaining open for so long, so it's good to see some admins trying to clear the backlog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the summary BHG. And thanks for closing that FL. I read BHG's lengthy addition and decided my bleary eyes were telling me I needed sleep. Looks like you took care of it while I was sawing logs : ) - jc37 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate your pushing for mass nominations[edit]

I listened to your push for a mass nomination on the colonial issue. And what do I get. I see that the Category:Tennessee colonial people has been massively misues as a category for Cherokee who never acknowledge any non-Cherokee overloardship, and then for my trouble of removing these people from being so inapropriately categorized I get attacked by Hmains and have people tell me I am wrong and shoot down every one of my ideas. They have the audacity to want to mixed British and Spanish governors of Florida into one category. They call me disruptive. Why do I even bother. The more I try to improve things the more people attack me and denigrate me. No one ever appreciates anything I do. All they ever do is attack me. I try to improve the encyclopedia but it is never enough to satisfy people. I am sick and tired of being called disruptive for trying to make things make historical sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, I'm sorry that you feel hard done by, but building consensus is not an easy business.
I dunno whether you were right that some people were wrongly included in the category, but I am sure you did it in good faith. However, removing the articles before a CFD nom is often seen as inappropriate. If it is done, the nom should always disclose it. So even tho you obviously had no intent to be disruptive, can you see how other good faith editors saw what they thought was a disruptive effect?
Your nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 15#Category:New_York_colonial_people didn't identify any difference between that and the other categories, which was why which I opposed it. If there are differences, then the mass nom was the wrong approach.
I also think in hindsight, it was a mistake to open so many separate but related nominations at CfD Nov 16. If the issues are not the same in each case, it's better to proceed step by step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the main attack has been about articles in Category:Tennessee colonial people. The people being included or not is not at all relevant to whether the category should exist or not. Secondly, you fail to realize that Hmains has engaged in what I feel is a continued pattern or rudeness and personal attacks against me. This was a recent post he put on my talk page, and I feel it was rude, inconsiderate and out of line. "After all this, you still refuse to fix the mistakes you make. So I fixed it, but I and other editors do not appreciate having to come along after you edit and clean up the errors you make. And your errors are not 'rare'. I see them in about 1 of 20 or 1 of 10 of your edits. I suggest you need to clean up your act or stop editing this type of article. Helping WP does not include making errors because you do not choose to take the necessary time to read the article content. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)" I am not sure what to do about such behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is easy for you to tell people to make mass nominations, but you do not have to go through the emotional drama of being massively insulted and lied about as I have had to. It is very frustrating. I have been accused of making changes to the contents of categories when I made no such changes. It does not matter what I do, it never does any good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then there was this statement "If you get a chance, you may want to look into the edits made by John Pack Lambert. My observation: he does not understand categories and the articles in them, but proceeds to make wholesale changes, regardless, to make things different than what they are now--with no good reason. Hmains (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)" by Hmains at Orlady's page. These two editors have coordinated their attack on me. This is worse then I thought. This is an unjustified attack, and I am tempted to respond to it, but do not think I can with any success. I have given up on trying to talk to Hmains. He believes it is his place to point out others mistakes and mock them for not correcting them, when it would be a lot easier for him to correct the issue himself. This whole thing is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, I have encountered your editing enough times over the years to know that you edit in good faith; I don't just have to assume. Similarly, I encountered Hmains enough to time know that zie too is working in good faith to try to improve Wikipedia.

In this case, you made some changes to the categorisation of people, based on what you believed to be the scope of the category; but Hmains takes a different view of its scope, and objects to those changes. Looking at the discussion, it seems to me that you both have a good point here. AFAICS, Hmains sees the category as including everyone who lived in the area now known as Tenneesee; OTOH you want to apply the political geography that existed at the time, and apply that political geography only those who fitted in that political structure. (pls correct me if I got that wrong). I can see a good case for both approaches, and I'm not sure which one to prefer. Maybe we should have both? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People executed by China[edit]

Please see my request on Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)'s talk page on why I don't think a merger should have been done. Please provide your input. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have commented on Mike's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

in your userpage categorization, "carnivorous" is mis-spelled. wait, i think i just misspelled mispelled.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention[edit]

User:LoveMonkey is under the editing restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice", as I am correspondingly restricted from making article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice. Would you please indicate whether this edit was a violation of the editing restriction. For myself, I believe such tagging is a violation, since allowing LoveMonkey to add this tag to information about Roman Catholic teaching or practice would open the door wide to many similar edits by both LoveMonkey and me, the sort of thing that the restriction I agreed to was meant to avoid. I have tried to get LoveMonkey to agree peaceably to withdraw his edit, as I myself recently reverted an edit that I made regarding "Western criticism of the practice of Hesychasm and by proxy the Theoria derived from it" without adverting to the heading, 10 screens up, "Eastern Orthodox Church". LoveMonkey has refused to make a similar withdrawal of his edit. On this see User talk:LoveMonkey#Edit regarding Western theology.

I would be grateful if you would kindly intervene. User:EdJohnston has given up his attempts to act as referee (see User talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou vio AGAIN). I hope this does not discourage you. Because LoveMonkey has now told me, "Please stay off of my talk page", I have thought it perhaps best not to inform him directly of my appeal to you. Esoglou (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I will be available very little over the next few days, so it would be wrong for me to intervene.
May I suggest that you raise this at WP:ANI? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I deal with attempts to empty a category out of process[edit]

Thinks have gotten totally outrageous when James Augustine Healy is removed from Category:American people of African-American descent and put in an African-American category. Healy never self-identified as an African-American. At a minimum this category should be brought before CfD if people do not like it. This is totally in line with the use of other categories like Category:American people of Jewish descent. It is outrageous to me that people would so grossly misapply a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and Hmains have a fundamental disagreement about how to categorise such people. I suggest that you both agree a moratorium on further additions or removals from the category, and work together to create an RFC on it. --21:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I googled for[edit]

brown hairy girls, and found you. Well 195.56.146.50 (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions at CFD[edit]

I've floated a new balloon, with some thought on how subdivisions (un-modified) has some ambiguity in India (lesser concern) and huge ambiguity on whether any meaningful organization of the subdivisions is required. I gather that you're from Europe, so I'll use a UK example. The Home Counties - is that a subdivision of the UK or England? The division of the UK into its sections by watershed, biome, soil type, weather type, geology, judicial districts, parliamentary constituencies, defense zones, etc. are all "subdivisions" of the UK. I don't know if the UK has something akin Rust Belt (a subdivision of the US?), but I gather that the socio-economics of the old Northern industrial cities of the UK is quite separate than the "Home Counties". Anytway, it's just one word but it makes it clearer and I'd like to see if we can garner consensus. Cheers, 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos
Yes, I'm Irish but lived for decades in England, so I know both countries reasonably well.
The Home Counties is an informal division of England, and yes -- the cities of the North of England are a good parallel for the Rust Belt.
Two things seem to me to be significant here. First is that in the case of the UK, the political cultural and administrative units are all subdivisions of the four constituent countries. The UK is evolving from being a near-unitary state to a sort of asymmetric federalism, but even in its most unitary phase (1972 to 1998) the constituent countries remained distinct.
I'm not familiar with the geological zones, but I presume that some of them cross borders.
So, I agree: the UK has many difft types of subdvisions. I think it is probably convenient to group them all under the common heading of "subdivisions" ... but below that, the grouping should reflect the actual structures in place. To my mind, the lower-level standardised categories such as Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions don't work in the UK, because England's variable local govt structure does not have consistent levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of countries have unequal divisions at the same hierarchical levels. Many countries have a "capital territory" which is a 1st level division of the country but does not have all the rights of the other first level divisions (in the US, e.g., the "District of Columbia" has no senators or voting members in the House of Representatives.) Other countries such as China and South Korea place cities at first level but don't give them the same powers as similarly leveled non-city regions. And then there's Russia, with first level "Federal Subjects" being of such a varied nature that defies categorization other than by level. And, of course, the further one goes down the hierarchical structure, the more deviation one sees: In the US, Louisiana has parishes, Alaska has both boroughs and census areas, Virginia has counties and independent cities, while most of the rest has just counties. And that's just administratively - subdivisions without the qualifier has all the various regions: California has Bay Area, Northern California, Southern California, the Central Coast, the Wine Country, Silicon Valley, the North Coast, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, just to name a few...all of which are "subdivisions" of California. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because "Silicon Valley" has no legal significance - no government, no ability to tax, etc., unlike "Santa Clara County", but both being potentially first-order subdivisions of California. Why confuse the two? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tread carefully as you go to lower levels. Subdivisions means only one thing in the US in common usage and that is a group of houses built by a developer. So there are thousands of subdivisions across the US, but not the ones being talked about here. Now are any of those notable? Yes, a few. So naming of the category could be an issue. This could come down to the use of 'in' v 'of'. But is that enough to make things clear? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Castes and cats[edit]

Your recent comments at DRV indicate that you may be interested in this discussion. Warden (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Colin Turner[edit]

A tag has been placed on Colin Turner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue list[edit]

Template:Rescue list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. pbp 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavyhanded administrative actions[edit]

I just made a posposal to rename Category:Colonial people to Category:People of colonies. At least one person who objected to the closed rename to Category:People of Colonies had accepted similar renames where colony was in lower case. The proposal got the support of an editor who had not weighed in on the previous discussion, but was closed in what I think was a heavy handed adminsitrative action, especially since so many people have clearly indicated the Colonies/colonies issue is a major one to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the discussion I closed is here; note the protest and my explanation here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, I am travelling at the moment and have v little time online. So I can't get involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue was resolved, but thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of user conduct discussion[edit]

Dougweller pointed out this comment of yours about Paul Bedson, which makes me think you might be interested in an RfC/U on Paul that's just been started. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to tech chats[edit]

Hi! I believe I saw that you're interested in the software side of Wikimedia, and I wanted to invite you to watch and participate in our live tech chats, which include video streaming. The next one is next week and you'll be able to watch, live, via screensharing, as a developer fixes a bug, including investigation, a git commit, getting it reviewed and merged, and closing the Bugzilla ticket.

Hope this is of interest! Best wishes, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. My interest in the tech side is sporadic, and only arises from particular problems, so I don't want any broader involvement.
If there was going to be a discussion how the WMF was proceeding to implement category intersection, I'd be very interested. It's a long-standing bugfix request. But I'm not holding my breath. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Have you already heard about Wikidata? I've asked Lydia Pintscher from the Wikidata project to drop by and talk with you about this, but she might not respond for 1 or 2 weeks as she is traveling. She and I think Wikidata might be the answer to this problem but she'll need to take a look at the details. Thanks again. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm finally back from traveling. As Sumana said I am happy to talk about this with you but I am not familiar with the problem you have. Is there some useful write-up I can look into? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my user page[edit]

I told you to retract your WP:NPA violation, where you quoted me out of context, or stay away.

Don't touch my user space again. If you need to, ask an honest administrator to do it for you.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer, I last posted on your talkpage on 23 April 2012, which is more than 7 months ago. In the last 8 days, I have made only one post anywhere on Wikipedia, and it was not in anyone's userspace.
There are two possible explanations for your message here:
  1. you are complaining about a disagreement we had 7 months ago
  2. You have mistakenly gotten the idea that I posted to your user space more recently
Whichever it is, there is no reason for you to come and complain at me now.
And the fact you choose to do post here in such hostile terms is actually rather funny. You accused me 7 months of being "dishonest" because we disagreed about how two issues related ... and you cite WP:NPA while making a false allegation of me posting to your userspace. Pot, kettle, black.
Kiefer, wherever I see you posting anywhere, you seem to demonstrate a great talent for turning a disagreement into a fight. In this case, you seem to be trying to invent a fight out of nothing at all. Please go away and calm down, and don't post in my userspace until you have established some sort of grip on reality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's referring to your removal of Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia from his userpage when you closed it at CFD on the 27th ult. Choess (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer, Choess. I see this edit, implementing my closure of the CfD. This is in accordance with the standard procedure at XfD, that the closing admin implements the consensus which they found. If Kiefer objects to the closure, he knows where to find WP:DRV; but I make no apology for implementing the closure, and I will implement any future closures regardless of the personal grudges held by Kiefer or any other editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of films[edit]

Please see Talk:List of Bengali films of 2012#Requested move. I believe this is being treated as closed as the file has already been moved. No? Apteva (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the discussion has now been closed as "move". I will now make a WP:BOTREQ to rename the articles on the extended list at User:BrownHairedGirl/Film lists for renaming.
I know that this was not the outcome you preferred, so thanks for your courtesy in notifying me of the progress. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to most people's opinion, I rarely have any preferred outcome, but I do often have views on what seems to me to be the most correct outcome. In this case I just like shorter titles, but I would not go so far as calling it either more correct or preferred. It was just an opinion. When I wrote the above it had not been formally closed, but the discussion had ended and the files were being moved as if it was closed. I started to close it but noticed that I had commented on the discussion and reverted myself. I had forgotten that I had commented. Apteva (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I fully understand the difference between a preferred outcome, and an opinion recommending a particular course of action; they both sound much the same to me. Anyway, that's water under the bridge now.
The BOT request is at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Lists_of_films_by_country_by_year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men by nationality and occupation[edit]

Hi, just a reminder that you said you would create the (above) container category once the CFD was closed out. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have created both Category:Men by nationality and occupation and Category:Men by occupation and nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Came across some of your recent stuff on MPs of various parties. Very good as always. Welcome back.Graham Lippiatt (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actress nomination[edit]

The comment you wanted to know about is in the discussion of Category:Male actors by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese_actresses[edit]

Hi BHG,

RE: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October_30#Category:Portuguese_actresses & your discussion at User talk:Good Olfactory.

Are you saying that it wasn't "no concensus default to keep" but "keep, there's an RfC, much more to say, this is premature and cannot achieve a consensus this soon"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here, as I think GO would prefer this conversation not there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smokey
Yes, I didn't reply on GO's page, because he clearly didn't want discussion there.
I thought that there were three possible closes of that Portuguese actresses CFD:
  1. "Procedural keep" as premature while an RFC is underway (which you suggested, and which I think would be the best close) or
  2. Keep, because the delete arguments were so weak. 3 editors supported keeping the category, and 3 supported deletion, but the delete arguments included "sexist and unnecessary" (unnecessary is just an assertion, and "sexist" is a term which could applied to any gendered category), and "I oppose" which is WP:JUSTAVOTE.
  3. "Rename to Category:Portuguese female actors", as suggested by two participants, to allay concerns over the term "actress".
The "no consensus" close appears to be based on vote-counting, rather than weighing arguments. As I noted at length on GO's talk page, his closures of the 3 actress CFDs are even worse when taken together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting at all on the substance of the issues, I think you have been overly aggressive with GO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. By the time I started investigating GO's closures, I had already seen a long series of failings of procedure, starting with Bearcat's antics, continuing with the opening of multiple CFDs while an RFC was underway. The closures which reinforced the procedural lock looked troublesome enough before I dug further, but my faith in the process was low by the time I encountered them.
I am flabbergasted and shocked that a WP:INVOLVED admin ([9] [10], then [11][12][13]) should decide that his role as closer is OK because he came to the conclusion that he is neutral.
I always thought that GO was an honest admin, and I really hoped that by setting it all out in front of him, he would recognise his error and revert his closure to allow an uninvolved admin to act. I remain astonished that he didn't.
Instead, he descended into straightforward gendered abuse (as I set out here), the likes of which I have never received before on Wikipedia. I'm appalled by that.
This is a long and sorry saga. I set out in September to try to get an open discussion about categorisation of actors by gender. Instead, I find that the system is being abused in multiple ways (such as the forum-shopping of 5 CFDs running while a directly-related RFC is open, and two categories being promptly re-nominated in the hope of getting a different answer), then flagrant contravention of basic admin policy, and when I try to plead with the admin to step back from that, I get vile personal abuse.
There is something very odd at work here. The term "actress" (as one term for women actors) gets 378 million hits on Google, and 173,000 on Google News. What on earth is going on that there is so much entrenched hostility to the to any possibility of allow our readers to navigate between sets of people who share a widely-noted and defining characteristic?
Gender is a significant human attribute which has been accepted for years as a basis for Wikipedia categorisation in some circumstances, which are restricted due to technical limitations of the category system (multiple intersections get messy, and the problem would go away if we had dynamic category intersection). However, some of the editor base (which is 87% male) want to remove the concept of "woman" entirely from the category system (see e.g. jc37's 2006 comment that he "would also be in favour of deleting category:Women, and all such sub-cats"), and several other CFD regulars still routinely take a similar view.
I need to sleep on this, because I'm losing faith in Wikipedia's ability to make even small, simple steps to overcome its systemic bias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I almost don't want to comment, as I don't want to disturb your sleep.
But as you mentioned me, I thought I should note that, as I recall, way back then (over 6 years ago), that category looked far different and I believe was massively cleaned up. I want to say that the category's current contents were in a "women's issues" category or some such, back then. But it's been ages so I couldn't say for certain.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your sleep. - jc37 08:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the list of previous CFDs has been cited as a reason in the current discussions, I have been reviewing the previous discussions on this topic. Some of what I find is intriguing. I see that back in Nov 2006, you commented on the singers category that "since we deleted actresses, then this should be deleted. If we had kept actresses, I would have said keep these. The concept is very nearly the same (throughout history). If in the future actresses gains consensus, then so should these, and vice-versa (if these are kept than I propose that actresses should be re-created)."
It's interesting that similar points are made in the current CFD, but you oppose keeping the actresses. Views can change a lot in 6 years, and in 2007 I initially opposed keeping women writers and men writers (I was subsequently persuaded to keep the women). But I have been checking through the long list at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Gender, and as far as I can see you have opposed keeping every single gendered category you have commented on since then. (I have supported deleting several gendered categories over the years, and even proposed a few such deletions, such as female philatelists.)
Having scanned dozens of discussions, I have not found any instance of you supporting the retention of a gendered category, or of you applying the tests set out in WP:Cat gender.
That lack of reference to the principles in the guidelines is is a long-standing problem with these discussions, which I see that I noted back in March 2007 and April 2007.
It's present again in the current discussion, where you accuse me of being "in an IWANTIT mode", when I was trying to apply the guideline. So I have to ask where you stand on WP:Cat gender. Do you support it? If not, do you accept that the principles it sets out have been stable consenus for a long time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG. You are welcome to my thoughts, which in this case are a reflection of my observations as a non-entrenched participant.

On the issues, I find that I agree with you. I see a weird repulsion to gender classification. It may be a product of the political correctness of rejecting anthing looking like gender discrimination. I'm not sure.

But I am sure that criticising GO is not productive. I'm sure that we all could be embarrassed by criticism that is public and deeply probing, but criticism of an individual's process actions does not speak to the issue of classifications by gender. I am very hesitant to believe that when GO returned from months of wikibreak, he did so intending to see the elimination of gender classification of actresses. I'm seeing that he has been offended, and you've lost focus in presenting a contested argument.

Overcoming systematic bias is hard.

I've read most of your links over the past two hours. Where is the RFC to which we have been referring? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is a lot to read. Thanks for putting so much time into it.
The RFC is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses_categorization. It was delisted as an RFC on 16 November, so I dunno whether it can be closed now as having reached any conclusion ... but I did a tally yesterday, and a clear majority of editors there support a gender split of actors. (I make it 11-5 if I count only those who explicitly said "suppport/split" or "oppose", and 18-15 if I infer a view from comments which do not explicitly make a bolded !vote).
GO's failure to take that discussion into account when closing the 2 CFDs is one of the many flaws in his closure.
I don't for a moment believe that GO came back from wikibreak just to pursue an agenda here; but I do believe that he has used his admin powers in support of his own views. He made a series of procedural errors in closing a tangled set of CFDs on which he clearly took a partisan view, and in which he should have known well that closure should have been left to an uninvolved admin.
When clearing a huge backlog, its easy to feel tempted to stray too close to issues on which one has been involved. Over the last few months, I have at times put in a lot of work to close some of the large CFD backlog, and when I have felt too involved for comfort, I have instead listed the CFDs at WP:AN/RFC. That option was open to GO, as was the alternative of simply skipping over the relevant CFDs. If he had made a good faith error in overlooking his own partisanship on the issue, then when challenged the honourable thing to do would have been to say "OK, in hindsight I was too closely involved" and reverted the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men by nationality[edit]

Hi jc37

Please can you explain why you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7#Category:_Men_by_nationality_.28and_subcategories_as_below.29 as "no consensus" rather than as "keep"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.
The nom was initially a question of delete. There was no consensus to delete (or any other action, for that matter) from what I see in the discussion. And for vote counters out there (of which I know you know by now I am not one, per WP:NOTAVOTE) 4:2 plus a comment by an IP, especially with most comments more concerning opinion than policy (though your comments touched on the EGRS guidelines somewhat), there wasn't much of a consensus to "keep" either. though obviously a "no consensus" defaults to a de facto keep in this case.
If you are asking because you would like to make a new nomination, please feel free. - jc37 07:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, but that seems odd.
I am not aware of any policy either way regarding {{container category}}s, so there was no policy issue at stake. The nominator's made two assertions: a) that the categories were "stupid", which is an opinion and not an argument; b) that the categories were unlimited in scope. The second point was a potentially significant one, but was countered by the proposal to make them {{container category}}s. Given that the nominator's concern was resolved, a 4:2 split in favour of keeping looks to me like a consensus.
I have no intention of making a further nomination, because there is no mechanism for opening a discussion to propose that a category be kept. My concern is that since this discussion rejected the arguments for deletion, it should have been closed as "keep".
Would you like to amend the closure, or should I take this to WP:DRV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I noted above that much of the comments in the discussion appeared to be "more concerning opinion than policy".
And as an aside, I do think it's odd that you are seemingly on a sudden bend to take a bunch of CFD closures to DRV.
But shrugs, feel free. I still do not see a consensus for anything in that discussion.
And if you feel the need to make a "point" to change a no consensus result to a keep result (even after I suggested you were free to re-nom), it's merely the community's time you're wasting, so I'll let the community express to you how they feel about that. - jc37 08:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know as well as I do that the difference between a "no consensus" close and a "keep" is that the latter treats the issue as settled for now, whereas the former leaves it open. This matters in terms of putting an issue to rest, and I'm sad to see that challenging a closure is dismissed as "making a point". That looks like an attempt to associate my concerns with WP:POINT disruption, and it's a very poor way to respond to a civil and reasoned set of objections to a closure.
As to your comment that "it's odd that you are seemingly on a sudden bend to take a bunch of CFD closures to DRV", you're wrong. I don't want to take closures to DRV, but nor do I want bad closures to stand. I challenged this closure of yours, and I have also objected on GO's talk page to a set of 3 closures by him on topics in the midst of a procedural debacle, where he is clearly WP:INVOLVED and has cherry-picked precedents and disregarded policy-based arguments. I don't see anything odd about that; what I do find odd is that there is are several admins with a long history of opposition to gendered categories who are closing discussions of gender-related categories in a way which bolsters their preferences. There 4 open discussions on the same topic (actress categorisation), and he closed them in isolation so that he could register a "delete" on one of them, by disregarding the other 3 simultaneous discussions but factoring in those from years before. I initially considered this a bizarre bit of logic, but given the clear evidence of GO's current passionate involvement in the topic, the most reasonable explanation is that it his actions were structured to bolster his own view. Quite aside from anything else, GO's breach of WP:INVOLVED is (to use his own description of this sort of category) simply abominable.
I find it odd that even tho you read and commented on that discussion, you made no remark on the evidence of GO's WP:INVOLVEDment, and instead try to cast my objections as POINTy. That's not what I would have expected of a candidate for arbcom.
BTW, you wrote in a related CFD "If there is something you think I am missing, explain it. convince me. I'd like to think I am fairly open minded". I did explain it, and I notified you of my response, so I hope that you would at least respond rather than just deleting the notification as "seen". You accused me of being "in IWANTIT mode" (despite the fact that I was putting forward arguments explicitly based in guidelines), so when you asked for and received an answer it would be nice for you to indicate whether the response had clarified things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the explanatory response(s).
I'm going to try to respond to each of your comments in order. My apologies if I miss any.
I didn't link to WP:POINT, and even if I had meant that, I'd have at least capitalised that word if that was my intent. My apologies for any confusion there.
What I was trying to express is that (to me) it appears you are advocating your position. Which, I suppose is fine as long as it isn't disruptive (not that I am saying you are as yet).
As for GO's page, there's a fine line between asking for clarification (and even arguing your point), and the brow beating and accusations you're seemingly attacking him with. (Which is how it's coming across to me, from merely reading the threads.)
GO came back from wikibreak and has helped a lot with the backlog, of which these are merely only a few closes. I think he stated he disagrees with your assessment, even after several attempts by you to further argue. At some point it's time to get wider community input.
As for why I said what I did, it's because I have not as yet fully looked over the situation, and was merely commenting about policy/guidelines. And using the word "breach" with an encouraged practice still seems odd to me, if not coming across as misleading. Someone unaware of the page in question (MULTI) might think you were accusing him of breach of some policy, when you are not, as you note.
And when I am not on such a slow connection, I'll more fully look over both this situation (and the other responses you note). My apologies if you felt that in some way I was neglecting you or your comments. - jc37 19:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this post earlier, hence the slow reply.
Thanks for clarifying your earlier comments.
The way I see it is that I was started by querying a set of closes which looked problematic from several angles, and the more I looked the worse the underlying situation was revealed to be. What it comes down to is this: he is a WP:INVOLVED admin ([14] [15], then [16][17][18]) who has decided that his role as closer is OK because he came to the conclusion that he is neutral.
You offer no criticism at all of GO's WP:INVOLVED closures; only of me for challenging him on them. Are you really sure that this is an appropriate balance of responses when GO defends his use of admin powers in breach of admin policy? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a case for DRV. Something which I didn't think anyone in that discussion disagreed with.
My "criticism" (to use your word) on that page was merely how you were coming across.
And in response, GO started to make some comments which, I would like to presume were meant to convey humour and frustration, but which you were well within asking they be rephrased/redacted/struck/or some such.
It's just that I've just seen these kinds of things escalate before, and would rather not see it happen between you two. And I don't think that your aggressiveness (to use SJ's wording) was helping your case, but rather is starting to hinder it, as you are no doubt starting to see by several people now noting it.
Anyway, as I noted above, I hope you have a good sleep. - jc37 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm still puzzled and disappointed by the way you treat the substantive problem of WP:INVOLVEment as a secondary issue, but I think we're gonna disagree on that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note[edit]

I have linked to this talk page there. I hope that more eyes on this may be helpful. - jc37 06:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89[edit]

This user is attacking me for what he claims is "over-participation in CfD". Yet if you look at the discussion of Category:American people of African-American descent he is the one who added lots and lots of comments to an excessive level, it was not me. While his main complaint seems to be about the discussion on Category:Imperial Russian people by occupation, I still think my comments are relevant, and after having seen discussions restarted because of lack of proper posting of notifications on the category pages, I do not think it was excessive of me to bring that up more than once until he actually posted proper notifications on all the pages involved. I have also tried my best to refrain from commenting on it. He also seems to dislike my removal of categories from articles where there is no in article support for the category, but multiple other people have agreed that this is allowed, and some have suggested that there is an imperative duty to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the mentioned discussion I made 9 comments, the other user made 28 comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please respond to this on my talk page. Maybe I am over-reacting, but in the context I have to wonder. It especially seems odd since at least at present the discussion that seems to have really prompted the current level of attacks Category:Imperial Russian people by occupation seems to be favoring keep. It almost seems like the person involved is going to take out his frustration at not getting his way with that category by joining with another user in attacking me. Of course, the fact that the other user he is trying to recruit has not commented on my talk page, at least not for a very long time, should maybe cuase me to not worry. Still it seems like at some level this is a payback for disagreeing with his ideas. I know he will claim it is not, but the tone he uses in his comments on my talk page and his responses to my comments with rude snippets like "what does that have to do with the price of eggs" cause me to wonder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brown, you needn't worry yourself about this. Yes, I am starting an RfC/U about JPL, but it isn't in response to the Imperial Russian discussion. I have no idea why he's equating it with that discussion; I haven't commented on that discussion in days, and I expressed my concern about him in category and CfD-space long before that discussion even started. The JPL RfC/U is in response to the fact that he has made a series of improper and controversial edits, edits at too high a volume, and that he cannot take criticism at all. And, yes I did say, "what does that have to do with the price of eggs?" in response to one of his Keep votes at an AfD I started...because he completely failed to back up his "Keep" vote with any policy or guidelines. Just like he's completely failed to provide any diffs in this meaningless discussion. So just ignore him pbp 19:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
One of the only admins (at least of the ones I know of) who have a 100% edit summary usage. Well done! :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
It seems to be such a simple basic courtesy that I do wonder why some editors don't manage it. And I think it's very poor form for an admin not to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... Edit summaries are now oft-neglected, which I feel should not be. Which is why you're deserving of this. Once again, good job and keep it up! :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding {{PAGENAME}} as a sortkey[edit]

FYI, adding {{PAGENAME}} as a sortkey for a category (here) is pointless, since the default sortkey is the pagename. I have removed it here, and the sort location in the category did not change. a better key would probably be "film list", since all of the templates in this category have something to do with Sri Lanka. the other changes are, of course, very useful. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't recall where it was helpful to remove the namespace from the sortkey when categorising templates, so decided to do it anyway. The "film list" sortkey you changed it to was indeed better ... tho I think that the best thing would have been to subcat them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment requested[edit]

Could I possibly intrigue you into commenting at Talk:List of airports in the Palestinian territories, as you have been a contributer to that article? Many thanks and Be Well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding {{PAGENAME}} as a sortkey[edit]

FYI, adding {{PAGENAME}} as a sortkey for a category (here) is pointless, since the default sortkey is the pagename. I have removed it here, and the sort location in the category did not change. a better key would probably be "film list", since all of the templates in this category have something to do with Sri Lanka. the other changes are, of course, very useful. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't recall where it was helpful to remove the namespace from the sortkey when categorising templates, so decided to do it anyway. The "film list" sortkey you changed it to was indeed better ... tho I think that the best thing would have been to subcat them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment requested[edit]

Could I possibly intrigue you into commenting at Talk:List of airports in the Palestinian territories, as you have been a contributer to that article? Many thanks and Be Well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings![edit]

Merry Christmas!
Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings![edit]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..[edit]


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]


Jonnybgoode44 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a happy holiday season! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Media-related lists for Australia, Spain also Transport categories[edit]

Please see my proposals for Category:Australian media-related lists and Category:Spanish media-related lists; also my comments on Category:Spain communications-related lists Hugo999 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
For sorting out 'Sunday Independent (Ireland)'. All over my watchlist you were, for a while. Happy New Year RashersTierney (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination Adelina Domingues[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl,

I reviewed a DYK nomination yesterday for a new article on Adelina Domingues at [19], and noted that an earlier article had been deleted 8 December 2007. It was suggested that I contact you to find out if the issues which resulted in the earlier deletion have been addressed in the new article. Could you reply at the DYK nomination rather than here? Many thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for bot[edit]

Requesting a favour, if possible. Template:CongLinks includes two parameters which are causing broken link problems. Parameter votesmart has changed to all numeric. Old values which contain both letters and numbers no longer work and should be deleted. Identify by non-numeric character. Parameter washpo changed to a code of letters and numbers. Old values which consisted of the person's name, with a connecting underline, should be deleted. Identify by the underline. Chuck Hagel shows examples of the current working values. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)![edit]

WikiWomen - We need you!
Hi BrownHairedGirl! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

  • Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
  • Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
  • Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
  • Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
  • Reading and writing for our blog channel
  • Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
  • Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia email failure: Will resend codes[edit]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questia email success: Codes resent[edit]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and the award for best argument at CfD from a female editor goes to ....[edit]

A wonderful New Year's gift at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_30#Actresses. I never would have chimed in as vigorously if you hadn't made your own excellent argument. It's so refreshing to see real-world logic prevailing every now and then. Maybe it's time to update WP:CATGRS? Congratulations and best wishes for the new year! Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to the decision to keep these categories I recreated Category:American actresses. It was then put up for speedy deletion which I have contested. I am not sure that it is neccesary to have multiple people contest such speedy deletions, but I thought you would be interested to know people are still trying to ignore the results of the CfD especially while Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses_categorization is still open. Also considering the irregular way that category was deleted, from a discussion on renaming it no less, makes the whole matter fishy at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, I'm sorry for being so slow in thanking you for your kind words above. I know e have had some disagreements, and it's great to have found a contentious issue where we have ended up on the same side. Your encouragement has cheered me up after a rather prolonged and messy process. Thanks! And a (belated) happy new year to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot about this note, and I guess that New Year's wishes are still appropriate during the entire month of January. In looking back over the past few years, I realize that I have learned a tremendous amount about Wikipedia (and about myself) during my past 200 to 300 thousand edits, and through that learned how to better focus discussions at CfD and elsewhere into arguments about the underlying concepts rather than the people involved, as well as deciding when to choose to fight and when to walk away to fight another day. The whole experience with male / female actors is a wonderful example of how some editors have dug their heels in on the issue of categorization, where the overwhelming evidence that the real world and the acting profession differentiate between the sexes can be rationalized away and disregarded based on such arguments as not giving a crap about what the Screen Actors Guild does. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_026&oldid=1031703072"