User talk:DexDor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pet animals CFD[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 29.
Message added 13:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talback –categorization of Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Ottawahitech's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Honorary Fellows of Oriel College, Oxford[edit]

Hello DexDor,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of Honorary Fellows of Oriel College, Oxford for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Children reared abroad by missionary parents[edit]

You have an excellent argument set out in the discussion of this category, one with which I concur. I note only that you misspell "outweighs" as "outways." I'm not one for spelling flames, but I thought you might want an opportunity to correct that, so that your good argument is flawlessly presented. Unfortunately, silly things like that sometimes affect opinions. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and correction. DexDor (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

AAIB[edit]

Hi, Dex. I'm confused by this revert. It claimed there was an issue with Wikipedia:DABABBREV#Abbreviations.2C_initials_and_acronyms: "Do not add articles to abbreviation or acronym disambiguation pages unless the target article defines the acronym or abbreviation."

I was adding an Indian government agency which is called... the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (India) (yes, the website of this agency uses the acronym AAIB). So in fact the target article does define the acronym that way. Your revert simply had removed the Indian agency WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe, at the time I saw the edit there was just a redlink for the Indian AAIB (which is against MOS:DAB). It's fine now. It's best to create the article first and then add it to dab page etc. DexDor (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

BYOB[edit]

Hi, I am pretty positive what I did to the BYOB page was constructive as postin' pals are all OG crew. Thanks. Fart villain (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Death of women[edit]

Category:Death of women, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support[edit]

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the extensive, low-profile but nonetheless important work on categories. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! DexDor (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

LMNOP disambiguation page[edit]

Hi there --

I recently reverted an edit you made to LMNOP, which you reverted back today. Not wanting to get into an edit war with you, but did you actually read what you left behind (on either occasion)? Your edit removed an incomplete part of an entry, leaving the second part of it in a way that doesn't make sense. I'll leave it to you to clean up your re-revert, but if you don't, I'll be doing so soon. Thanks. --Heath 71.62.156.220 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right. I've cleaned it up now. DexDor (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pennsylvania Route 19 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Traffic Information Service – Broadcast[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Traffic Information Service – Broadcast, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Technophant (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Manifolds[edit]

Thanks for trying to improve Manifold (engineering), but I think that your edit somewhat muddies the waters because of the existence of Manifold (disambiguation) - from which the Manifold (engineering) list was an odd POV-fork. The creator removed all of the engineering links from the disambiguation page. You can see my concerns at Talk:Manifold (disambiguation). I'm not sufficiently bothered about it to revert your edit, but I hope you can see that the difference between "Various types of engineering manifolds include:" and "Types of manifolds include:" used to help prevent drive-by editors adding out-of-scope links. --RexxS (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Manifold (engineering) page (although it may have originated in a split from a dab page) isn't a dab page - it's a (normal) article about the topic of (engineering) manifolds. I changed "engineering manifold" to "manifold" because (AFAIK) "engineering manifold" isn't a term in common use (if it was then "Engineering manifold" would be a better title for that page). I've added a hatnote. I hope this addresses your concern, happy to discuss if not. DexDor (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I originally made the point that Manifold (engineering) wasn't a dab page when I was struggling to keep all the links on the dab page. If you think that "Engineering manifold" isn't a term in common use (I agree), what do you think about a redirect named Manifold (general engineering)? <grin> Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage in having such a redirect (and linking to it from Manifold (disambiguation)?). DexDor (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you!LordFixit (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi DexDor, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

List of songs in Glee[edit]

How is this not a Wikipedia:SETINDEX in your opinion? postdlf (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi postdlf, WP:SIA 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. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise describes a set of ships.
Another example of a page that fits the definition of a SIA is List of songs named for the phoenix; it's a list of items of a specific type (songs) that share the same (or similar) name ("phoenix") (e.g. Phoenix (ASAP Rocky song)). List of songs in Glee is a list of songs that have been performed on the TV series - i.e. inclusion in the list(s) of a song (e.g. Empire State of Mind) is not based on the name of the song. None of the examples at WP:SIA are lists like this. That CAT:SI currently contains some inappropriate pages (e.g. List of earthquakes in Chile occurring in 2010) is not a good reason to add more pages that don't fit the definition of a set index. If you think that List of songs in Glee does fit the definition of a set index please explain. DexDor (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Because it's literally "a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name" (or in the template's more concise words, "a list of related items that share the same name"). List of songs in Glee functions and exists only as an index to the set of list articles Wikipedia has of songs in Glee, subdivided by seasons, and all the season lists are lists of songs in Glee and all the lists are titled the same. I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make, other than the lists you are citing are not lists of lists, but that doesn't seem relevant here, nor does WP:SETINDEX have anything to do with that. The only contrast that section makes is with disambiguation pages, which are of articles that only coincidentally have a similar name but don't necessarily have any topical relationship, as opposed to set indexes where when the listed article names are similar and the articles topically belong to a group. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi postdlf, A SIA is a list of items (things) that share the same (or similar) name. List of songs in Glee is a list of songs (organized as sub-lists) that have a wide variety of names. Because of the way the list has been organized into sub-lists the top article currently contains little more than links to the sub-articles, but those sub-articles are linked because of what they are, not directly because of any similarity of the article titles. Neither the title of List of songs in Glee nor its text indicate that it has anything to do with names (contrast with the phoenix example). A "List of ballads in Glee" article (for example) would be a valid addition to List of songs in Glee (even though its title doesn't contain the word "songs"). Another example: Lists of French films lists various articles - most/all of which (currently) have the words "French films" in their title - would you consider Lists of French films (and all similar articles) to be a SIA ? If so, then would the addition of a "List of French silent movies" article (for example) mean it would lose its SIA status ? DexDor (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Only the content at List of songs in Glee itself matters as far as what that page is, and the only things listed are the lists by season; the songs are not transcluded there. I noted above that your distinction seems purely based on the fact that this is a list of lists, but you have not explained (only asserted, and only indirectly) why a list of lists is categorically never a set index. Can you point to a discussion on this point, or any clear guideline language? Maybe some lists of lists are set indexes, maybe all, maybe none. What do you think the consequence is of a list being (or not being) labeled as a set index? postdlf (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Fru[edit]

I have reverted this edit, I have no idea what you're trying to do here. Please examine your edit again. If you have any questions, let me know. Lixxx235 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lixxx235, pleae see MOS:DAB (e.g. one bluelink per entry, no fullstop) and WP:DCAT. DexDor (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this is why I will never edit disambs. Was "gievn name" a typo? If so, I'll self revert and change that. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I've fixed it. DexDor (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Eagle (disambiguation) reversion[edit]

WP:DCAT specifically allows for additional categories. However, I have found a different solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Abdur Razzaq (name)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abdur Razzaq (name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.webmii.es/Result.aspx?f=Abdul&l=Razak&r=uk.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Coren I think your algorithm could be improved; it's fairly obvious that that website has copied from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It's my prose that you're talking about, as introduced here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It is, sadly, pretty much impossible for a bot to figure out the origin of prose when it circles out of Wikipedia and back in. Known (obvious) Wikipedia mirrors are excluded explicitly when found, but beyond that it's not obvious. That's why articles aren't put for deletion outright but marked for humans to review instead.  :-) — Coren (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Coren. The page says "[Wikipedia logo] Article (powered by Wikipedia) ... (text) ... Wikipedia article" - surely the bot could be programmed to ignore any page that mentions Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The short of it: no, it can't. Part of the problem is that copying from Wikipedia to some random text page and from there back to Wikipedia looses attribution of edits (in the same way a copy-paste article move within Wikipedia itself does). It's possible to do it right, by either copying the history along (as some mirrors do) or adding a notice pointing to the correct attribution source in an edit summary but that really needs to be done by a human.

Sadly, no bot is smart enough to look at a site, decide if attribution was correctly preserved and moved along the text; this is why the articles get tagged for a human to review. — Coren (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Surname language categories[edit]

While you might be technically correct, I do not see the value in removing valid categories from dab pages that happen to have 1 or 2 surname-holders in them. Everything in Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists is a hybrid between a dab page and a set index, so I'd hope for some leeway when it comes to categories. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see WP:DBC in fact already covers it: "When a disambiguation page includes a list of name-holders (in cases where the separate anthroponymy list article has not yet been created), explicit categories such as Category:Fooish surnames are acceptable on the disambiguation page until the anthroponymy article is split from the disambiguation page." —Xezbeth (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I decided to clean up up a lot of these dab pages now before I lose track, many of which weren't dab pages in the first place but mistakenly had a tag. The main ones that you might take issue with are Fryar, which I merged back together as there is no need to split it. The other entries were all redlinked partial title matches so I do not see the need for a separate dab page. Similarly, Abdur Razzaq was clearly an article about the name and did not need to be split. The other entries are partial title matches derived from the name so do not need to be disambiguated, or even mentioned at all. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for picking that up. IMO dab pages should be dab pages and articles (including articles about a name) should be articles (e.g. Aiza). Allowing surnames to break that rule means we get various forms of dab-article hybrid (e.g. pages like Messier and Morin). I'll do some more thinking about how we can improve this area. DexDor (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillicum Elementary School[edit]

Hi, DexDor. Could you look over the new version, where all entries meet MOS:DABMENTION, and consider withdrawing the nomination? Everyone else has voted keep and it'd be nice to close it and not take up any more time (unless you still object, in which case, it'd be great if you commented on that). Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Bakri[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Leoesb1032 (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Leoesb1032 - please read MOS:DAB before "correcting" edits to dab pages. DexDor (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, the page is better now, however there was a grammatical error and some thins that should have been there. Keep in mind, I am using STiki and when it shows me something like this it seems like it should be reverted. No need to edit now, thought. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Massacres[edit]

(this is re Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Massacres_of_men)

hi Dexdor - thanks for your input. I do agree a list would be useful, and as pointed out, Gendercidewatch has created such a list, a database of such gendercides/sex-selective massacres, so it would pass LISTN. I don't think OR is required, all that is needed is if sources note that men or boys were separated from women before being killed (or vice versa) - this is the criteria Jones uses in his paper on gendercide and genocide - that's the definition of sex-selective massacres. We have several other "Massacres of X" categories, and I thought it would be a useful sub cat of violence against men to separate it from domestic violence or other sorts of violence and to focus on this particular phenomenon which is well attested in the literature. I'm happy to trim the header of the category, I only put that there temporarily since several people !voting thought it was intended to include battles or other activities where combatants are killed, which is not in scope for the category. Is there any framing/restructuring of the inclusion criteria that might convince you to !vote otherwise on this category? Many people seem to believe this is very common and thus not worth categorizing on, but I didn't find that many instances, at least attested in articles we have here, where the article was primarily about such a massacre (there are other articles in which such massacres occur within a much broader context, in which case I didn't add it to the article.)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO the "[not] combatants" bit is needed (seeing how some editors miscategorize); it's the reference to Jones and the citation that are out of place on a category page. I'd like to phase out all distinguished subcategories - they make life harder for categorizers (as they break the normal SUBCAT rules) and if we want "normal" editors (who specialise in articles not categories) to categorize articles correctly then we should keep categorization (very) simple. Thus, it's unlikely that rewording the inclusion criteria would change my !vote. Your last statement ("there are other articles in which such massacres occur within a much broader context") reinforces my view that this could be better handled as a list (again pushing me towards D rather than K). DexDor (talk)
Distinguished sub cats are tricky, but if you recall from the American novelists squabble there was incredibly strong consensus to keep that modality. The only reason I marked this one as distinguished was because I expected that anything categorized in this one should also be categorized in others - but I'm happy to remove that distinction, it's ultimately not that important. Anyway, I think the fact that outside sources discuss such massacres apart from massacres where gender isn't a factor is worthy of categorization. It would be great if you could read through the Jones' paper and see if that might change your mind, or what else might... :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't particularly follow the American novelists discussion. I've skimmed the Jones paper and it didn't surprise me - the strategy of marauding hordes of males for ages (e.g. Vikings) has been to kill men and rape/enslave women. Jones could have chosen to look at the relationship of something else (e.g. ethnicity, age, language, religion...) to genocide - just because an academic has studied the link between X and Y doesn't mean wp needs a category for that intersection. A list would be more appropriate than a category (e.g. it can explain the complications better than category) and when there is a list there is little point in this category - its costs (in editor time and complication of the category structure) outweigh the benefits. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
So you'd delete Category:Massacres of women too? And yes, while I agree wikipedia doesn't necessarily need a category for each intersection studied, we also have WP:DEFINING, and for all of these articles, or at least the vast majority, the fact that all men (and in some cases, only men) were slaughtered is defining, it's placed in the lede, like "This massacre was the killing of all males age 10 and older in the village of X" - it is a classic case of defining, in that when people talk about the massacre the fact that it was just the men killed is indeed defining of it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Re MofW - maybe delete, but selecting women for killing is unusual. WP:DEFINING tells us that if something isn't appropriate for the lead it isn't appropriate for categorization - the reverse may not apply.
Your example "This massacre was the killing of all males age 10 and older in the village of X [in year Y]" rather makes my point - I count 5 characteristics there (massacre, male, age 10+, X, Y) and in most cases religion/ethnicity is also mentioned (and often what was happening to the womenfolk). We should choose which of those characteristics to categorize on (especially when combinations of characteristics could mean many categories) - and IMO the most important characteristics for _categorization_ (e.g. to be comprehensive and to fit into wider category tree) are type of event, location and year - categorizing by religion/ethnicity of victims probably comes next - the gender balance of the victims comes after that (IMO). DexDor (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but none of the sources I've found have spent time studying, for example, the difference in massacres of Hindus vs massacres of Buddhists, nor do they spend a lot of time studying the difference in massacres in 2014 vs those from 1980 - and yet we categorize on these criteria. We already categorizing Massacres in year X (we have such categories), and massacres in country Y (we have such categories), and we even have a few categories of (Massacres of (people of ethnoreligious group)) - there are as many varieties of massacre-grouping as there are ways to categorize novelists! :) But of all of those characteristics, one which has seemed to garner significant study esp in past 15 years is gender. What is the role of gender in violence? It is a topic of a lot of research, and it's something that crosses cultures. And they specifically study, for example, what CAUSES certain types of massacres and atrocities like this to become gendered, and in what cases are they not? For a long time the holocaust was seen as not worthy of gender analysis, but people are starting to research that as well - even if the eventual goal of the Nazis was full elimination of Jews, there was nonetheless gender discrimination - they had the soldiers kill the men first, to desensitize them before killing women and children. The vast majority of our categories are incredibly flimsy and only held up by the slightest of sources, whereas here we have dozens of sources which study gendercide of male non-combatants, but people still want to delete the category! In addition, there is some research that suggests that these sort of gendered effects - separating out the men and slaughtering them vs. just a random killing of villagers - can be indicators of or precursors to larger acts of genocide. What is the logic that leads to this decision to kill the men? Some people !voting think simplistically that it is a way of eliminating a fighting population, but this is not true at all according to the literature; for example in Bosnia, the goal was to eliminate a people from an area, and the murder of the men and transfer of the women was seen as serving this purpose - Carpenter studies how this choice allowed the Serbs to retain a semblance of cooperation with international forces while still fulfilling their goals, which would not have been possible had they simply killed everyone. But even though there are many possible motives for the sex-selective mass murder, there are also common elements as Jones discusses, the ritual separation of the men and boys, the transfer of the women and children elsewhere, and then the executions - this pattern is repeated again and again. Thus, I think this category serves a useful purpose, by bringing together in a single place a number of events which despite their diversity, share something very important in common - If reliable sources care about something and study EXACTLY such gendered violence across time and space, that's a good sign we should too. And again, of hundreds of articles in the massacres tree, I only found ~20 for which this is a defining characteristic, so I don't think we have to worry about this category being added to lots of other massacres. FWIW, I've updated the inclusion criteria and trimmed a bit more, not sure if you like the result or not... I guess my question for everyone is, what is the policy-based reason for deleting? The contents meet WP:DEFINING, there is plenty of literature supporting this intersection between "massacres" and "of men", and it serves a useful navigational purpose, and there are reliable sources that make similar groupings and study them accordingly. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Re DEFINING, just a couple of example from the ledes of these articles:

Nothing in that wall-of-text changes my view - in fact most/all of it is irrelevant to my reasons for !voting delete (which suggests you havent read/understood my comments above - e.g. re DEFINING). Some of those example leads refer to the victims using terms like "Fooian battle-age men" suggesting that they were killed because they were Fooian potential combatants - not directly because of their gender.

The category inclusion criteria of Whether the men were selected for killing may not be a neat decision - e.g what if the attackers kill all the men and all the women except women of breeding age? what if the men stay in the village to reason with the attackers (but are killed) while the women flee into the forest? what if we know that most of the men were killed and most of the women survived, but the exact mechanism of the gender disparity is unclear? All in all it's too messy for categorization when other characteristics (massacre/place/year) are sufficient to select a single/few event/s - contrast with, for example, 20th century American novelists which may number thousands.

That academics study a characteristic does not necessarily mean we should categorize by it - for example (in a different topic area) academics may study the high-street economies of (British) towns with/without free parking, but that doesn't mean "Towns with free parking" is a good idea for a category - instead we categorise towns by county (regardless of whether academics compare towns in different counties). DexDor (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I've made my points. As to "how do we know", the articles I placed within almost all have this important characteristic, which is a specific separation of the men and boys. Thus, this is not about times when men were in the village and the women were not and they were killed accordingly. A choice has to be made to spare the women or send them away elsewhere in order to qualify. These are the types of instances the academics study as sex-selective massacres.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

History of ballooning external link[edit]

Regarding reversion in History of ballooning: Yes, if you want to learn about the physics of ballooning, you're in the wrong article, which is why you have the sections "see also" and "external links". Wikipedia has guidelines that say not to overload those sections, but they also say they are to be given a lot of leeway as they are made in anticipation of the further interest of the reader. The previous editor anticipated that a reader might want a quick overview of the basic technologies of balloon flight without cycling through the balloon physics article that goes through all the physics and modern engineering, as this is a historical article. I agree, and since there's only 4 external links, and this one is clearly described, it is exactly what an external link should be.

But possibly most importantly, User:Ivankomarov is inexperienced and made a completely constructive, useful, uncontroversial edit. Let it stand for at least a couple weeks for the good of the community -- one shouldn't bite especially over something so minor. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv, If we let (minor) detrimental (in this case because it's offtopic) edits stand because the editor was relatively new then it degrades the article, encourages other newbie editors to make similar edits (e.g. this is often seen on dab pages), doesn't provide feedback to the new editor and takes up extra time assessing the newbieness of the editor. My first reaction (based on experience) on seeing a probable newbie (as indicated by redlink userpage) adding an inappropriate EL is that they are here to try to promote their website rather than to improve the 'pedia. I've now taken a closer look at the newbies contributions and this is indeed the case here - e.g. [1]. I.e. instead of "The previous editor anticipated that a reader might want a quick overview of the basic technologies of balloon flight without cycling through the balloon physics article that goes through all the physics and modern engineering, as this is a historical article." it's more accurate to say the newbie is spamming his ELs to articles where he thinks they might stick.
Note: some editors think it's "less aggressive" to undo the edit without reverting, but other editors see that as a sneaky "silent revert".
WP:BITE is about how to interact with (good faith) newbies to nurture future good editors, not about keeping detrimental edits by spammers. DexDor (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:DexDor/Categorization[edit]

Just discovered it, and very much like it. Would you mind if I mess it up a little? Paradoctor (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paradoctor, copyediting is welcome (thanks). Suggested improvements and criticism are also welcome, but best on the talk page. DexDor (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

SIA v. dab[edit]

Hi, DexDor. I noticed that you have changed several SIA articles to disambiguations. If the reason is that editors are warned when linking to dabs and not when linking to SIAs, the solution is obvious: Wikipedia should warn editors when linking to SIAs. I do not understand why this has not already been implemented. Please be aware that the trend seems to be in the direction of moving dabs to SIAs, not SIAs to dabs. In the discussion at Template talk:Set index article#Promotion and use in Wikipedia, I listed 12 articles in Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages that could instead take the {{plant common name}} template, making them SIAs. Very quickly, other editors did exactly that. If you wish to reply, please reply here, not on my talk page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Orange_Emperor. DexDor (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Fictional landship for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fictional landship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional landship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)