User talk:Grutness

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

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

Contents

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archives[edit]

10/04-01/05 02/05 03-04/05 04-05/05
05/05 06/05 07/05 07/05
08/05 09/05: 1 09/05: 2 10/05
11/05 12/05 01/06 02/06
03-04/06 05-06/06 07-08/06 09-10/06
11-12/06 01/07 02-03/07 04-05/07
06/07 07-08/07 09-10/07 11-12/07
01-02/08 03-04/08 05/08 06-07/08
08-09/08 10/08 11-12/08 01/09
02-03/09 04-05/09 06-07/09 08/09-6 Jan 2010
01-06/10 07-11/10 12/10-02/11 03-12/11
2012* 2013*

* = still to archive

Liopeltis[edit]

Hi Grutness,
I am a french contributor on wikipedia and I am working of the Liopeltis article. On the english version we can read that these species can be found on India. It is real but we can found it also on Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Philippines. I am referring of Liopeltis on Reptile Database. I prefer you make correction by yourself because my english is... not perfet (!). Thanks a lot. Have a nice day. 2.8.197.227 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC) (Givet

Done :) Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LakeGunnBush.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:LakeGunnBush.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The description page clearly stated that I took the photo, and I followed that description up with a gfdl-self tag. Something is clearly wrong with your suggestion that there was no proof. What do I need? A photograph of me taking the photograph? Grutness...wha?

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Grutness,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk Back - Admin Interviews[edit]

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

Proposed deletion of Mark Sorenson (softball)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Mark Sorenson (softball) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 02:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Took five whole seconds to find a reference. Much less time than it will have taken to deal with a prod for a patently notable person. There's a distinct glitch in one of the policies here... Grutness...wha? 05:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely wish you luck with your proposed rescue group. You will find everything you need to make such a group functional here, here (expand the table), and you may also find good ideas from the work we did at WP:URBLPR. Oh, in terms of people who spend time checking the first link for notable biographies which should be saved, I'd strongly recommend you chat with User:DGG, whose work I find commendable, and I expect you will too if you're not already familiar with him, I suspect he'd be delighted to make constructive suggestions about your project proposal and join your efforts. Best regards, --joe deckertalk to me 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was suggesting what should be set up. All I was doing was adding information about how groups have been set up in the past, to save a lot of good work going down the drain. I've been involved in the setting up of several other such groups across Wikipedia (most notably Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting), but I'm now semi retired from it (after 180,000 odd edits, I think I've done my bit for the project). And yes, User:DGG is one of the good ones - I've worked on WP with David a couple of times in the past. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah well, my mistake, my apologies. Thank you for your work, you certainly have! My biggest effort so far was the year or so I spent with WP:URBLPR adding sources to biographies out of the 53,000 bio backlog I mentioned over at WT:BLPPROD -- about 95% of the 3000 BLPs I addressed myself (over about 20 months) I was able to add sources to and move on. Anyway, thanks for responding, have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You too :) And thank you for your work, too - despite us not fully having seen eye to eye on this particular item, it looks like you've done some great work here too! Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Have a great weekend, thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 02:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Trans-Tasman Greetings[edit]

Hey, Grutness.

Nice to see you gingerly dipping your toe into the waters of the Ref Desk once more. There are too few regulars from Down Under, and we need the Kiwi perspective on things, because the Aussie one is not actually the only one worth knowing about.

I hope you can get beyond earlier issues and not let anyone else dictate your level of involvement here. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

G'day Jack - yeah, I'm here... very low-key, though, and I'm letting others with more patience do most of the admin work. Don't be too surprised to see me on the Ref Desks every now and again. Good to see you still hanging in there! Grutness...wha? 05:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

stub q[edit]

There are a couple of proposals for animal stubs on the table at the moment. The need some but the nameing seems off. So I wondered if you could give me some input. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll help if I can... what's the problem? Is it part of the split of Category:Beetle stubs which looks like its underway? Grutness...wha? 06:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes and the one above it. I thought that the stub templates are build to include the path while these are only with one name. Agathoclea (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure I understand... do you mean in the template documentation's stub hierarchy? Because that will only include the one name... it's designed to shoa hierarchy if the stub template's name is hierarchy specific (e.g., UK-road-stub will list road-stub and US-bio-stub will list bio-stub, but a beetle related stub would only list its parent if it was named something like Archostemata-beetle-stub ). So no other name should be listed there. Or am I misunderstanding you? Grutness...wha? 11:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Its the Archostemata-beetle-stub vs Archostemata-stub that has been baffling me. I thought the first would be the correct one but no-one sofar had mentioned that so I thought I must be imagining things. The Carabidae-stub existed since 2009 so I think it has not been brought into line. Agathoclea (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, as far as naming the templates is concerned, Archostemata-stub is perfectly OK and would probably be the more usual stub name (unless there are things other than beetles called archostemata). The hierarchy link in the doc page is only a rough guide, and lots of stub types don't show a full hierarchy there - as long as it can be worked out from the main stub list and the categories, there's no real problem. Grutness...wha? 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

William Gilbert Rees[edit]

Hi Grutness, I had been thinking for a while now it was strange someone so important was missing from wikipedia. Thanks for adding the article. I have made some additions, hope your ok with that. regards, --Grapeman4 (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any more info on the birth place? I think it could be St Issels and then either near Saundersfoot or near Haverfordwest - both seemed to have a church called St Issels which was parish. Agathoclea (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the additions - it looks good. I must admit I wasn't 100% convinced the cricketer and the founder of Queenstown were the same person, though it seems very likely, especially given the added info. The only birth info I have is from Cricinfo, though if I remember I might look up a book on early Queenstown next time at the library to see whether I can find out more. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cache Cache[edit]

A tag has been placed on Cache Cache, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Not a good redirect. "Cache Cache" is a common expression as well as a notable brand in France.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Laurent (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when has that been a speedying criterion? Make it into a dab page if you think it warrants it, but it certainly doesn't deserve deletion for that reason! Grutness...wha? 09:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tidal islands[edit]

Hello Grutness, I hope that life is treating you well. When you are online and have a moment, could you please visit Talk:Pepin Island and comment? All the best to you. Schwede66 05:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NZ-N Taranaki B.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:NZ-N Taranaki B.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Matt (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matt - when I uploaded that image I made it quite clear by tagging it {{PD-self}}. The "self" part should make it fairly clear who created the content. I created it and am the copyright holder of it, and as such release it into public domain. By "creating" it in this case meaning just that, I drew the original North Island map (File:NZ-NI_plain_map.png, which was successfully transferred to Wikicommons, and from which a large number of maps on Wikicommons are made) freehand using a variety of public domain sources. I then added the location of the bight using the natural boundaries of the coastline as markers. I don't know what other information needs to be added - or CAN be added to that. Suffice to say that I repeat my earlier statement - this is {{PD-self}}. You will note that a lot of maps which I made in this way and marked in the same way (probably about 150 of them) have already been effectively transferred to commons with no problems. Grutness...wha? 05:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Grutness. Thanks for getting back to me. I'm sorry if you felt like you were wasting your time defending a file you made and uploaded. I am new to moving files to Wikimedia Commons and was trying to be bold about verifying the source of your file. I definitely noticed the {{PD-self}} tag, but was unsure about whether that was sufficient as a 'source', and not just as a 'licence'. The file description had no mention of its source of creation, only that you had uploaded it and marked it as being released to the public domain. I've added an information template to clarify that it was your own work, but that arguably doesn't add any information that you hadn't already put on the page. The "no source" tag is now gone and if I have time later, I'll move the image and its related images to Commons. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers - and sorry if I sounded a bit grumpy - it wasn't my intention :) Grutness...wha? 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The future of stubs[edit]

There is a proposal that stubs should be abolished - see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Eliminate_stub_templates_completely.

I'd noticed you weren't active at WP:WSS recently but had no idea that you'd been one of the many respected editors driven away from Wikipedia by a minority of editors. Glad to see that you seem to be returning a little. Best wishes. PamD 07:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pan[edit]

Hi, thanks for the explanation. However, my point was it wasn't a circular reference to another Wikipedia article - if it was, i would have agreed with you - but a link to an image (which happens to be a wiki image) to illustrate that particular statue, in line with the others. --Stelmaris (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Good work! Gallery is a definite improvement to the page. Cheers.--Stelmaris (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for category:Translator stubs[edit]

Hi Grutness. Hope you are doing fine. I have just published a proposal to create a new category:Translator stubs. What do you say? Regards from Montevideo, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edith Ronne Land and Queen Elizabeth Land[edit]

Dear Grutness, the two Antarctic lands are distinct as illustrated by the latter's official map. Therefore, their relevant categories, templates etc. should be kept separate not merged or redirected. Apcbg (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That map shows Queen Elizabeth Land to cover exactly the same area as Edith Ronne Land. How are they different? Grutness...wha? 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you may be confusing the Edith Ronne Coast, which includes the islands in the Filchner-Ronne Ice Sheet, with Edith Ronne Land, a separate entity which covered the wedge of land extending from the coast of the Ice Sheet down to the South Pole. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no Edith Ronne Coast, at least according to the US GNIS, UK BAT Gazetteer, and SCAR CGA Gazetteer databases.
"... Edith Ronne Land, a separate entity which covered the wedge of land extending from the coast of the Ice Sheet down to the South Pole." — according to whom? The only official name 'Edith Ronne Land' that I could find is Tierra Edith Ronne in SCAR CGA. It is given by Chile, and defined as the portion of Antarctica between the base of the Antarctic Peninsula and Coats Land, in southeast direction from the former. The southern limits of Edith Ronne Land are thus less than well defined, but surely the vicinity of the South Pole further south is not situated between the Peninsula base and Coats Land, as the latter "forms the eastern shore of Weddell Sea" according to the US, UK and Norwegian 'Coats Land' articles in SCAR CGA. Furthermore, Coats Land is described as "extending in a general northeast-southwest direction", hence not extending southwards to the pole. Apcbg (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. In which case, things get messy, since all the categories have been merged. As explained, Edith Ronne Land was never an official name for the entity (which had no official name), and as such you won't find it listed officially in any Antarctic survey listings - it was, as with the Edith Ronne Coast, an unofficial name. Edith Ronne Land is often taken to refer to the wedge between 36° and 80° West (excluding the Antarctic Peninsula and Coats Land) and therefore seems to be the name which was formerly used for the area now covered by Queen Elizabeth land. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out and sourced, Edith Ronne Land is an official name given by Chile (Tierra Edith Ronne), so in the absence of conflicting other official definitions the Chilean one should be taken as authoritative, precise or vague as it might be. Apcbg (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be officially used by one programme - but it has also been used unofficially by other Antarctic programmes, so some note must be made of the definitions they have previously used for it - definitions now covered by the term Queen Elizabeth Land. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added some sourced explanation to that effect to the Edith Ronne Land article. Apcbg (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - and sorry to have been a nuisance :) Grutness...wha? 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome; wish you nice holidays! Apcbg (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You too! Grutness...wha? 07:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

- 220 of Borg 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC) (Darn, just past the 25th 'UTC Xmas' day!)

Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations[edit]

As a contributor to the article, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations (2nd nomination).
Wavelength (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for keeping the article.
Wavelength (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any time :) Grutness...wha? 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Compliment of the season[edit]

And a belated seasons greeting to you.

Yeah, I know that Pōhutukawa do not occur naturally down our way but it is our indigenous Christmas tree. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What a nice picture! Very peaceful to me...--Jetstreamer Talk 00:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Scott Statue[edit]

HNY to you. I've removed Category:Port Chalmers from the Scott Statue article again, as it is (was) located in Christchurch. Please put it back (with some explanatory note) if I have overlooked something. Schwede66 09:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Again? I only created the category a couple of hours ago! There are two different Scott monuments, as explained in the text. One is in Christchurch, the other is at Port Chalmers. Perhaps the category should wait, however, until a separate article is created for the PtC monument.Grutness...wha? 10:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, writing a separate PtC article would be the right thing to do, I suggest. There are lots of Scott memorials outside of New Zealand, so it would be great to get a series for them started. Schwede66 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've tidied the files on Commons up including category names, so that it's not quite so ambiguous. Schwede66 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. Grutness...wha?

NZ association football cats[edit]

Hi; I nominated those other NZ soccer cats you mentioned, but they were opposed because the article is at Soccer in New Zealand. See here. However, the first two I nominated went through. Kind of weird. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added my 2¢ at the speedy nom. Looks like it may have to go to a full nomination. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Afterwards I decided to "boldly" move the article to Association football in New Zealand. That move is being discussed right now at Talk:Association football in New Zealand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:South Dunedin/GA1[edit]

You nominated this for Good Article status in mid-February, and it was reviewed at the end of the month. It's now the end of March, and you haven't yet addressed any of the issues raised in the review. Are you planning to follow up on the review, or should we close the nomination? Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise that an official review had been done separate to the comments on the article's talk page (I expected to receive some form of notification if any other form of review was started). I did follow up on the talk page comments, which is where I though the review suggestions would be made (and where quite a number were made) - but that was quite some time ago, and to be honest I'd completely forgotten about it, having moved on from that to working on other things. Grutness...wha? 18:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation of what happened, but what's important now is what you plan to do now that you know what the GA review says. (The actual page with the review is transcluded onto the article's talk page, so you can respond in either place.) As the final sentence above asks, will you be participating in the review, or should we close the nomination? You can reply here or to the review; I'll be monitoring both, so no need for another talkback. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Might as well close it, for now at least - as I said, I'd forgotten about it (two months ago... that's what - 2000 articles ago?). In any case, a lot of what requires citations can't be easily or quickly cited. It comes back down to the old problem with Wikipedia that the only way to readily show something is through "original research" (I can go down to Cargill's Corner, photograph the South City mall, and upload the photo - but that wouldn't count as a citation that the mall exists there. Same with the residential and light industrial districts blending into one another). Grutness...wha? 23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll arrange to have it closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Gibraltarian media[edit]

Hi Grutness, I just saw you moved "Gibraltar media" to this category. Can I just point out that the term "Gibraltarian" has a specific legal definition which only applies to people from Gibraltar that meet certain criteria. The term for anything from Gibraltar other than people is "Gibraltar", i.e. Gibraltar Health Authority or Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation. Please let me know if you need further clarification. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 09:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

replied on Gibmetal77's talk page. In brief - it's a subcategory of Category:Gibraltarian culture, so the name was following from that. Grutness...wha? 10:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your rationale. The way I see it, culture is something intrinsically linked to people so I see no problem in the use of the term Gibraltarian culture. Whether this would also apply to its media is, in my view, debatable... It is generally accepted that Gibraltarian is the demonym (with restricted use, see Gibraltarian status) and Gibraltar the adjective. Although I don't think it's a huge issue in any case but it may be important to clearly define when it is and when it isn't acceptable to use the term Gibraltarian to avoid confusion in future. Let me ponder on this for a while and I'll get back to you. By the way thank you for the great job you do sorting all those categories! :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 11:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK - again sorry for any bother. As for the categories, my obsessive-compulsiveness got the better of me again! I only meant to do the media categories for one or two countries, but it looks like I've nearly done the lot! :) Grutness...wha? 11:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Academic journals and media[edit]

Hi, over the last couple of days you have been adding several articles on academic journals to "media in" categories (sometimes even going down to city level). I'm not sure that's correct. The top cat for all these media categories is Category:Mass media, which explains that "media" should be understood as "mass media", which academic journals most certainly are not. In addition, almost any journal is international in scope (or at least national), so categorizing them down to city level doesn't make much sense. In the Academic journals project, we don't even categorize journals by country, because that is usually too complicated: an editor in one country, a publisher with offices in several others, a typesetter in yet another one, a printer somewhere else, and authors and an editorial board from all over the world... In short, I don't think that these cats belong on academic journal articles at all. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've only been adding them where the articles make it clear that they originate from one specific university (and therefore are based in one city). I've only been categorising by city, and only where a country is already listed, so the "sometimes going down to city level" is a bit of an odd comment. Any which have more general bases I've not been categorising by city (maybe one or two have slipped through, but it's not been my intention to categorise them like that). Grutness...wha? 10:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected, they've been categorized down to city level. Nevertheless, the other points stand: these are not mass media and no academic journal will ever identify itself with just a single city. But the first thing is enough, these cats are for mass media, which academic journals definitely are not. --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If they identify solely with one university and are aimed at membership only of that one university, then they definitely do count, and are definitely local media. And, as I said, it is only those which i am aiming to categorise at the city level. Any journals which are aimed at a national or international readership, I am leaving without a city tag. As I said above, one or two may have accidentally slipped through, but it is not my aim to categorise widely disseminated journals in that way. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You're missing the main point. Let's forget for a moment the silliness of categorizing academic journals on city level. The real problem here is that academic journals are not "mass media" and don't belong in any "media" category at all, as I explained in my very first comment here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not missing the main point - but you seem to be missing (or misreading, or misinterpreting) everything I've said. Let me repeat it in bullet points. Please read it:
  • If a journal is written for use only by one specific university, then it should be categorised according to where that university is. This happens only very rarely, since most academic journals are not specific to a particular university.
  • The 99% of journals that are not university-specific are for use by the academic community as a whole. As such I am not categorising them and never have been.
  • These categories are not for "mass media". They are for "media". If they were for mass media alone, then none of them could be categorised by city - mass media doesn't belong to a specific city. There would be no local newspapers in there. Nor local radio stations. Nor local television stations. Yet all of these are quite definitely categorised by this category scheme. University journals have been categorised for years on Wikipedia as an (admittedly specialised) form of media, and they would be almost always mass media in that - with the very few exceptions mentioned above - they are not for local use only, but for wide dissemination. I repeat I am not categorising these journals by city.
Let's consider some hypothetical examples: The "Taihape University Journal of Crunt-laden Positronics" explains in its article that it is for use within the Taihape University's world-leading Positronics Faculty and contains articles written by that university's staff and students. It is only used in the one city, so it makes sense for it to be categorised as "Media in Taihape", as well as being categorised under "Taihape University". The "New Zealand Crunt-laden Positronics Quarterly", run from Taihape University, would not be categorised as "Media in Taihape" or media from any city. It would be classified as "New Zealand media", within the subcategory "New Zealand academic journals". The "Journal of Positronics and Cruntology", a leading journal in the field worldwide, and run from Taihape University, would not be listed under "Media in Taihape", and might not be a member of "New Zealand academic journals" either (if it's there, it's there - I wouldn't add it to that category, nor would I remove it from it), but it would be listed in a subcategory of "Academic journals by subject", as appropriate. I would not add a city-specific category in any case other than the first case, as in tat case it would be appropriate.
As it happens, for the most part I have been completely avoiding looking at the academic journal categories; those journals which I have looked at have mainly been in general magazine or periodical categories, and I have been adding them to the appropriate academic journal categories if I've noticed them. As I mentioned before, it is possible that I have inadvertently marked an academic journal or two to a city category, but if I have it has been just that - inadvertent - and likely because the journal was incorrectly categorised as a periodical or magazine. It is quite plausible that I have failed to notice that an article categorised as a periodical was actually for a journal and marked it in a city category - that sort of thing can easily happen when you are looking through literally thousands of articles.
For the most part, other than our difference of opinion as to whether a publication edited for specific dissemination to a wide academic community can be regarded as media (that is, as publications edited for specific dissemination to a wide community). In other regards, you are telling me to do exactly what I am already doing. As I have now explained three times. Grutness...wha? 09:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm being particularly unclear, I guess, because you keep misunderstanding me. There are TWO separate issues: 1/ All these cats are for "mass media", because all media cats fall under the parent cat, Category:Mass media. The kind of academic journals you are talking about will have print runs of a couple of hundred max, perhaps not even that. In any case, if you want to redefine the "media" cats as containing all media and not just mass media, you should start a discussion to rename the topcat. (BTW, as far as I know, local newspapers and local TV stations are generally considered to be "mass media"). 2/ Any academic journal that is "written for use only by one specific university" is almost certainly non-notable, I can guarantee you that. Let's take a real example of a journal that you categorized to a city (Valdivia): BOSQUE. Now go to "online access (in the journal infobox), and click on the latest issue (2012:3) and just for fun, look at the first article in that issue (English version here. No author is from Valdivia. They're not even from Chile. Same for the following 4 articles (I stopped checking after that). Now go to the journal's homepage and read its mission. Nothing says that this is a journal "written for use only by one specific university". Have a look at the editors and editorial board. True, the editor-in-chief is in Valdivia, but the co-editors are from Spain, Argentina, and another Chilean university. The board members are from all over the world. In fact, it's a thoroughly international journal that happens to be published by the forestry faculty of the university in Valdivia. It's not a mass media (99.9999% of the population of Valdivia probably never have even heard of this journal, which really is quite specialized), it's not particularly connected to Valdivia either. I took BOSQUE just ad random from those that you categorized and I expect that what I wrote about this journal goes for 99% if not all of the journals that you categorized. As I said in the first sentence under point 2: journals that fall within the limits that you set for categorizing them are almost certainly non-notable and hence won't even have articles that can be categorized. Just to make sure that I didn't just coincidentally pick one of the rare exceptions that you mentioned, I looked in your contributions for the last three academic journals that you categorized: Norte Grande Geography Journal, Magallania, and Historia. Check them out, they all show the same pattern (even though they are a tad more "local" than BOSQUE, as can be expected given their subject matters): editors, editorial board members, and article authors from all over the world. None of them obviously connected to a single city. None of them are journals "written for use only by one specific university". --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
1) If the categories are for mass media, then I suggest they've been made that way for a purpose. I propose that you remove all local media from them - any local newspapers, television stations, radio stations, journals, and magazines. That should also have the effect of tidying them considerably by reducing their content by some 70%. However, it should be noted that with the sole exception of the top level category (which I haven't had to deal with, since I am only working on media by city), every single category is simply named as "media", and all of them would also need to be renamed. And there are a LOT of them. If you think this is a bad idea, and since you seem to be the one who has the major problem with it (I've no real problem with it - the definitions of mass media seem surprisingly vague, and the catalogue tree has worked fine for a considerable time), perhaps you should take the top-level category to WP:CFD for possible renaming. I would be likely to support such a move, since the term mass media is a woolly one (in fact, I've seen a couple of places which have simply said that "mass media" is a term meaning "the media"!) 2) There are several such journals that I have come across that I would regard as particularly notable - though you're right that in general they would be non notable. It does seem that I slipped with a few of the Chilean ones, for which I apologise (I have removed those categories). I can easily see why I made the slip in three of those cases - they are categorised as Category:Chilean magazines and I would have automatically treated them as such. Considering the number of articles I am working with here, once something is listed as a magazine I simply look for its point of origin. If they had been correctly categorised just as academic journals, that would not have happened. Grutness...wha? 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
They're not magazines, so they should not be in that category at all. In fact, for all the reasons outlined above, the Academic Journals Wikiproject discourages the categorization of journals by country and currently no categories named "German journals" or such exist. Magazines are different, they are almost always targeted to a national or sub-national audience. As for the media categories, I don't care about them as such, I just want them removed (because inappropriate) from journal articles. You are filling them and I thought you should be aware of the inconsistencies of what you are doing with what the topcat says. Limiting them to mass media sensu stricto would not really thin them out much. It will remove the newsletter of the local bowling club or such, but not local newspapers, TV or radio stations, and such, because those, I repeat, are generally considered to be mass media. But as I said, I don't care about those media cats and you can feel free to fill them with whatever your fancy strikes. However, I do care about articles on academic journals and I would really appreciate if you could check the other academic journal articles that you have categorized (I remember seeing quite a lot on my watchlist a few days ago) and remove any inappropriate "media in" categories that you have added. If you find any really local journals, let me know and I'll probably take them to AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The only ones I'm "filling" are the by city ones - I'm working with what's already there in the by-country media categories. I'm certainly not adding in any new articles that aren't already categorised as media. And believe me, culling the local media from them would, as I said, remove over half the articles (and also as I said, I wasn't aware that the title of the top cat was inconsistent with the title of all the lower level categories). Newspaper categories in particular (which often make up the bulk of national media categories) are predominantly local and would have no place in a "mass media" category - at least according to the definition of "mass media" at Mass media, which says clearly that it " is distinguished from local media by the notion that whilst the former aims to reach a very large market such as the entire population of a country, the latter broadcasts to a much smaller population and area, and generally focuses on regional news rather than global events". If you can, please supply me with a list of the other journals I've edited articles on. I've edited approximately 5,000 media articles in the last three weeks, and since you seem to be the one noticing which ones are incorrect, it'd be far easier for you to let me know, especially since quite a large number don't have titles which indicate that they're journals (e.g., the Magallania and BOSQUE ones you mentioned above). Perhaps since you seem to be working on journals yourself, which are - to say the least - only peripheral to the work I'm doing, it's be a good idea if you removed them from the media categories. As far as the journals being in national categories, there is an unfortunate loophole which means that they often are. Journals are frequently in categories for specific universities - which in turn puts them into a higher level category for university presses - arranged by nation. Thus, for example, Category:University of Belgrade academic journals is in Category:University of Belgrade publications, which is, quite correctly, in Category:Serbian media. Unless you can work out a way to reconcile that, the problem will remain. Oh, and if you're sure that all one-university journals are likely to be NN, I suggest starting by nominating Harvard Law Review :) Grutness...wha? 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing them myself (gradually, no time for a big sweep right now), just didn't want to appear to be on a "revert war path" :-) With HotCat probably less work than making a list and posting that on your talk page. You're right about unexpected twists of category trees, I hadn't noticed this yet. At least the journal cats themselves are not directly in the media cats... Law reviews in general are a special type of academic journal. In the US (and some other countries), they are mostly edited by students, which of course all are local. Don't know directly about the HLR, but almost all articles on these reviews claim to have published articles by all kinds of national notables that are not necessarily connected to their respective universities (those articles are almost invariably rather promotional when first created). So at least the authorship is wider than the local university and they all are certainly intended to be read outside of the local university (they all like to tell us that their journal has been cited in this or that Superior Court or Circuit Court case). Just as a general remark, the whole category system is pretty messy. There are not that many people regularly working on it (as opposed to people who would categorize CNN as "media in the US", "media in Georgia", "media in Atlanta", etc). I mostly limit myself to academic journal cats and think that I've been able to keep those reasonably clean, but it's a constant battle (just in the last few days somebody created Category:Reviews journals and insists that all law reviews should be included in it (even though a review journal is quite something different altogether). Oh well, I'm digressing. Going to get a cup of coffee now and actually do some real work... :) Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - and keep up the good work on the journals :) Grutness...wha? 00:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Loanwords[edit]

You've today created Category:Māori loanwords and included the statements "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves..." and "This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves...". However, you've then proceeded to place loads of articles that aren't about words (i.e. articles that shouldn't be under Category:Words and phrases) in the category. You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Loanwords and Use–mention distinction. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I copied the heading from Category:Italian loanwords. That category contains such articles as aria, antenna (radio), graffiti, artichoke, intermezzo, arpeggio, scenario, barista, cantata, cappuccino, latte, extravaganza, monsignor, papparazzi... all of which are about the concepts and things rather than the words. Similar headings can be found in Category:Portuguese loanwords (which contains Breeze, Capybara, Cashew, Fetish, Flamingo, Marmalade, Molasses, Mulatto, Piranha, Stevedore, Tapioca, Verandah...), Category:Russian loanwords (agitprop, balalaika, bistro, borzoi, bolshevik, mammoth...), Category:Spanish loanwords (armadillo, avocado, flotilla, conquistador, sombrero, cafeteria, mosquito...)... If you removed the articles which relate to concepts and things, you'd reduce all of those categories to a mere shadow of what they are. Given that each of the articles does relate to loanwords and that such articles usually have an etymology section, surely it would make far more sense to remove the headers? Grutness...wha? 00:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because an article contains an etymology section doesn't make linguistics a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that article/subject. That editors keep putting articles in these categories inappropriately should be a reason for purging/deleting the categories - not for making the situation worse. DexDor (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm... which suggests that you would be happier if the categories were deleted. Interesting. I also find it interesting that you don't see the etymology as a defining characteristic of an item. As WP:DEFINE says,
  • "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". Look up any item in a dictionary and you will find the etymology of an item's name. Many encyclopedias will also have the etymology listed. Frequently, the etymology will provide important information about the object's origins, or the concept's first definition. If that isn't a defining concept, I find it difficult to know what is.
  • "If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Again, the etymological origin of an object's name is frequently of such importance that it would make sense for it to appear in the lede. Take "luau", for instance, which you removed the category of Polynesian loanwords from. The first sentence of the lede says: "A luau (Hawaiian: lū‘au) is a traditional Hawaiian party or feast that is usually accompanied by entertainment." The first four words mention that it is a Hawaiian word, and then immediately afterwords it is defined as being a Hawaiian party or feast. What part of that suggests that its Hawaiian etymology is not defining?
  • Finally, "if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining". It doesn't. None of the forms of overcategorisation mentioned on this page are relevant to the concept of the origin of a concept, discovery of an item, or cultural significance of either, all of which are often intricately enmeshed in the etymological origin of the item or concept's name.
Okay - look at it the other way. The loanwords categories are "only for articles about the words themselves, not for articles about concepts and things". That means that every article which would qualify for the categories under these rules would instantly be flagged as a dictdef, and would be likely to be removed from Wikipedia. You have basically two options for the categories - either allow articles about items and concepts which have loanwords as their names, or delete the categories because they will become empty. If these categories are to be meaningful at all, they should be treated the same was as all other categories for words and phrases, and allow articles based on items and concepts named for those words. Which makes sense, as this is how many other categories on words are ordered on Wikipedia (yeah, I know, quote "otherstuff" again. I do know it. It's an interesting essay - not a policy or even guideline - which I helped write). And my initial comment still applies. If you remove the articles which are not specifically about the words themselves, most of those categories would be almost empty anyway - even the largest ones would be whittled to a shadow of their current size. Take the musical and cuisine terms alone out of Category:Italian loanwords (in none of which cases are the linguistics of the concepts defining), and you drop it from 168 pages to about 25. You are right, however, that I should never have included that header in the category I created - I have removed it. Grutness...wha? 08:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are doing, but Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 17#Category:Loanwords said to delete the categories but instead, you are populating them. This is becoming part of the problem instead of the solution.Curb Chain (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Since the categories were still there after over a year, I assumed that the decision had been overturned. If not, I apologise. In normal Wikipedia practice, once a CfD discussion is closed with "delete" as the outcome, the categories are removed immediately. Is there any reason why this hasn't happened in this case? If they have been recreated, why have they not been speedied and salted? If the decision still stands, let me know and I will listify and delete them. It should have taken hours to do that - not sixteen months! Grutness...wha? 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Such as with articles that closed in AfD's with cleanup, I can only guess that the categories were not depopulated because simply no one has yet had the time to do so.Curb Chain (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you will find this discussion intresting: It seems that some germane CfD's had been nominated that resulted with the same close, where the participants were-not-aware/did-not-know-about this previous CfD.Curb Chain (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(nods) It could be that the depopulation hasn't been done because no-one's got round to making the list articles - or they fear the list articles would become problematic in the same way as the categories. But sixteen months is too long. Is it any wonder I thought discussion must have been reopened/overturned? There must be others who have thought the same. I'll convert the Maori category I made into a list and delete it. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I can only hypothesize that creating the lists (per the closing-instructions) risks getting the lists deleted, as I can hypothesize the lists will be unsourced and even hard to verify.Curb Chain (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind letting me know when you have made the article? I'm concerned that if we put it through a WP:AfD test, it might not survive. This might be a deeper issue than what it seems....Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)I don't think that this sourcing is an issue.Curb Chain (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I found another category that has a related situtation: Category:Slavic loanwords. Slavic is not a currrently living language, but still, articles are categorized under it, and Category:Slavic loanwords has subcategories.Curb Chain (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's another one where all the categories where simply deleted and not listified. There doesn't seem to be a standard. Concerning...Curb Chain (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the article, then realised afterwards that a very similar article already exists (List of English words of Māori origin), so I've merged the two at the former previously existing title. Looks like this might be the tip of a worrying iceberg. As to finding sources for the lists, it should be possible to confirm a lot of the words, simply by looking for their use in newspaper articles. Evidence of their use in English language news media would probably be enough to indicate that they are being used as loanwords. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The simple solution to this problem is simply to listify the remaining categories, purge and clean. As you can see some articles are already created. Once empty, the categories will be deleted, I think they can be speedied too.Curb Chain (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Done another of the simple ones (Portuguese), which already had a list page. Will start on some of the others when I get some time. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lists of loanwords[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why you depopulated Category:Lists of loanwords. What was the rationale for that, please? Special:Search/intitle:Loanword indicates plenty of scope to keep it. – Fayenatic London 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been several CFD debates, all of which have suggested that the loanword categories overall should be listified and deleted. This is explained at the top of Category:Loanwords. This one is one of the more relevant. It's been a long process, but all of the categories are slowly getting the treatment, and we've just got round to Cat:List of loanwords. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen some of the CFDs, and agreed with listifying the words. I don't see how it follows that the lists should not be categorised. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Fayenatic. The Category:Loanwords CFD didn't discuss Category:Lists of loanwords which is/was a valid category. DexDor (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The lists are already in a category - or at least the English ones are - Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin. Removing them effectively gutted the category down to only one or two lists. If you think it's still worth having, that's fine, but my understanding was that all categories relating to loanwords should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If there's articles that were legitimately in Category:Lists of loanwords (e.g. List of loanwords in Indonesian) (and I think there's more than 2) then the category should have been taken to CFD (e.g. to propose deleting or renaming to something like "Lists of loanwords in non-English languages") rather than emptied. The loanwords CFD included a list of categories (although the cats weren't tagged), but didn't include the lists category. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
If it was wrong to delete it, then simply re-create it. I'm simply trying to help out here (I would have preferred if none of the categories were deleted, BTW, as you'll see if you look at the section of this talk page above this). It was clear to me (although it seems erroneously) that the message at the top of Category:Loanwords was intended to cover the entirety of that category and its subcategories; if it didn't, it should have said so. There were only two articles that I recall, BTW, but I've worked on so many of these things in the last couple of weeks that there may have been more. Grutness...wha? 07:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
More than that! I have restored it. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You found a large number that i've never seen before too (I'd only even visited about a quarter of those pages!) The category must have been heavily underpopulated to start with. Grutness...wha? 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I also restored Category:Lists of Celtic loanwords, although that should perhaps be renamed as "Lists of loanwords of Celtic origin". There are sufficient pages to populate ...of Germanic origin and ...of Arabic origin. Do you agree that these would be useful? – Fayenatic London 13:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make them, make them. I don't mind either way. I got dragged into this whole thing as a favour to someone who thought the lot should be deleted. As long as their not in Category:Loanwords, there's no problem that I can see. (After all, this whole business started up because that category was to be deleted). Grutness...wha? 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, someone has prematurely deleted Category:Loanwords. It seems to me that it should exist until the non-list sub-cats of Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin have been listified, namely Category:Hungarian loanwords‎, Category:Italian loanwords‎, Category:Latin loanwords‎, Category:Russian loanwords‎, Category:Slavic loanwords, Category:‎Slovene loanwords‎, Category:Spanish loanwords‎ and Category:Turkish loanwords‎. Also, if its head categories were valid then the lists category should probably go into most of them. – Fayenatic London 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fayenatic. I depleted it, since its one list subcategory was better categorised elsewhere and at the rate with which I'm listifying the loanwords categories they should have gone very quickly. Having the loanwords category still there simply encourages further creation of subcategories (I've already deleted two which were created since the listification process started). I'm afraid I don't understand your last sentence by the way. What is a head category? Do you mean top parent category - if so, that's the one being deleted, so putting them in there would be a waste of time. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah - think I've got you... the other, more general parent categories. Yes, I already put it in all of them. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
"it"? I meant that you should have put Category:Lists of loanwords into Category:Language contact, Category:Historical linguistics and Category:Words and phrases by language, as these were parent categories of Category:Loanwords. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
By "it" I mean the only one that wasn't there which made sense to put there. And I wasn't talking about Category:Lists of loanwords, I was talking about Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin, which is the category I'm working through. Category:Historical linguistics was the only one of those three which wasn't already there. I thought you were the one dealing with Category:Lists of loanwords! Grutness...wha? 00:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you last "dealt with" Category:Lists of loanwords, by removing it from all those hierarchies at a stroke. What I mean to encourage you to do is to check, when editing category/article A to remove it from head category B, whether A should instead be placed in any of cat B's parents. So when you edited Category:Lists of loanwords to take it out of Category:Loanwords, IMHO you should have put it into those parent categories instead. Likewise, you simply removed the article Turkic loanwords in Armenian from Category:Loanwords, whereas it would have been better to move it up to Category:Etymologies. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I put that article in Category:Turkic words and phrases and have since added Category:Armenian words and phrases - both of which seemed a more sensible place and precise to put it than Category:Etymologies. Etymologies are accounts of the origin and historical development of individual words - there are no individual words referred to in that article. Instead it talks in general terms about the origins of a subset Armenian words and phrases. And yes, I removed Category:Loanwords from Category:Lists of loanwords, since the parent category was being deleted. Surely it should already have been in all the other categories you mentioned though - if it belonged in them, you'd have put it in them when you created the category, no? Grutness...wha? 08:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No, because that would have gone against WP:SUBCAT. That's why when you remove a category, IMHO you should consider whether any of its contents need to be upmerged to any or all of its parents. Simple deletion breaks hierarchies. As for the article on Turkic loanwords: loanwords is a sub-field of Etymologies; lists of loanwords is a sub-cat of lists of etymologies; but you are right, Category:Etymologies is not quite right for the article as it is not a list of examples, so I am moving it up to Category:Etymology. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cupcakes not Bulldog gravy[edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg
Hafspajen has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. I like your work, go on.....

.

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 11:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Grutness/common.js[edit]

Hey, just a heads up that right now your js is probably broken. You should be able to fix it by adding "); to the end of the line, leaving you with:

importScript("User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js");

Legoktm (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I was wondering what was up with it. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hm. And now it doesn't work at all! Grutness...wha? 00:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your awesome flag[edit]

I put your flag on Uncyclopedia's article on New Zealand. It's a lot better than all the other flag designs, so why the hell not? You need a flag anyway that shows you're not just South Britain. Check it out. Article here. About Uncyclopedia here. InMooseWeTrust (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Glad it helps the article! Grutness...wha? 00:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunedin mayoral election, 2013[edit]

I've started an article for the Dunedin mayoral election, 2013, given that candidates are now coming forward. You are probably better placed than me to keep up with developments, so you might want to add to that article when necessary. Schwede66 22:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I probably shouldn't - I know one of the candidates (Aaron Hawkins) pretty well, and don't want to run the risk of COI. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. If there's something of relevance in the ODT or on Channel 9, can you please bring it to my attention? Maybe post a link to it on the article's talk page. Much appreciated. By the way, I removed the redlink for Hawkins from the Dunedin mayoral election, 2010 article, as from the distance, your mate looks non-notable. Is that a fair impression, or would he possibly pass the requirements? Schwede66 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
He's close to notability, but probably not quite there. Yet. He's working on it :) And yes, I'll pass on anything worthwhile! Grutness...wha? 02:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of English words of Italian origin[edit]

Hello, Grutness, I'm sorry for invading your article, but I was collecting words from many months. As you can see, I've kept your edits. Lele giannoni (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not "my" article, and any additions to it are useful :) (referencing them would also be useful, though). I started the article to empty Category:Italian loanwords, which is set for deletion, but I've been distracted by other tasks in the last few days. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunedin history books[edit]

Hi Grutness, I keep an eye on Canterbury history books listed on TradeMe. Sometimes, my search returns Dunedin history books (examples 1, 2, and 3). Are you interested in those, and shall I pass URLs to the auctions on to you? Schwede66 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... it's tempting, but I probably have enough Dunedin history books of my own, and I regularly visit the public library, so I probably wouldn't need them. It's a nice thought though... might be worthwhile if you see something interesting! Grutness...wha? 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for the "the most wonderful comment ever " about the new "visual editor" thing. I nearly died laughing! As one of the "little women" they think are too stupid to learn wikimarkup and thus the target market for this monstrosity of code, I have to say that I think they're way off base, this is only going to open the project to griefers and kids. But I digress, you hit the nail square on the head far better than I ever could, and for that I applaud you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it! I was worried that I'd gone a bit overboard with the comments, but it really is a horrible new system, and making live (and default, even worse) before ironing out the bugs was pretty ridiculous. I agree that it's likely to be bad for Wikipedia in the long run, and as you say, very patronising. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
" ... noxious heap of festering cack ... ". Well said! Very quotable.Face-smile.svg --220 of Borg 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Very poetic. Schwede66 06:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Grutness...wha? 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The comments are now archived in perpetuity →here for the delight and delectation of future generations. - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, even with my preferences set to no longer see the VisualEditor it seems to have returned, so I'm afraid I've been forced to wax lyrical again... Grutness...wha? 11:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, that's why I went to find your original comment. I'm looking forward to your future waxes ("they're lyrical, Jim, but not as we know it"). - Pointillist (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh. I note that the new set of VisualEdit buttons seems to have gone from my talk page again. Presumably just another bug undocumented feature being dealt with. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pixie Williams[edit]

Thanks! Nice additions to the article.–Kiwipat (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Victoria, New Zealand[edit]

An anon has removed Victoria, New Zealand from the list of suburbs of Gisborne with this edit saying there is no suburb with this name. Looking on Google maps, there is a Victoria Domain, and a Victoria Childcare Centre nearby, but no indication that there is a suburb of this name. I do realise that the naming and boundaries of suburbs are hazy. Since you started the article, could you please add a source for its existence, or perhaps prod it if you cannot find one.-gadfium 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps its had its name changed since the 1960s, but it's definitely shown in McLintock's "A Descriptive Atlas of New Zealand" and listed in the 1969 edition of Wise's Guide. It doesn't seem to show up on recent maps, though... perhaps it no longer exists as a suburb name? Will have to investigate further. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This suggests that the name is still in use: [1] Grutness...wha? 00:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hadn't thought to check Wises, but it's in my 1974 9th edition too. That's sufficient to justify the article, but I'm not going to revert the anon's edit to Gisborne. It may be that Awapuni is now considered to include the area south of Waikanae Creek.-gadfium 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Buckethead[edit]

Hi Grutness, I left a message for you and more editors at Talk:Buckethead. I think you should know that EXT have not been allowed in DABs for at least all the time I've edited. Cheers Widefox; talk 10:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Widefox - I've replied (it's at Talk:Buckethead (disambiguation), BTW!) Grutness...wha?

Next match day scenarios[edit]

It has long since been decided by consensus that Next match day scenarios are not included. That is the current consensus. If you would like to open up a new conversation and try to reverse that consensus, feel free to do so. Until then, a majority of editors have decided against their inclusion. This is based on WP:FUTURE. I am sorry I was sarcastic to your edit, I thought you were being sarcastic with your edit revision comment. Chris1834 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. And when I did see the edit summary it said the only reason the information wasn't there was because the next match day information wasn't there. I wasn't aware of the consensus, so it made perfect sense to add it. The consensus seems strange since information contingent on future results is still used with other sporting events (such as here. It also seems odd not to have information mentioning which teams may meet in the playoffs on what is, after all, a summary page of the qualification process. Grutness...wha? 03:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion can be found here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This was obviously a dispute in the soccer pages as the dispute originated through the UEFA Champions League. Since then it has filtered down through most of the soccer pages. I don't have a problem with them personally in theory but sometimes they get so complicated that they have so many scenarios it is hard to keep track of. This has caused edit wars amongst people that think they should be included as they adjust and fine tune them with mathematical possibilities that have an extremely low chance of ever happening. It causes more fighting than constructive editing. I think another issue is there was no consensus in formatting, so every article you went to looked different and made it harder to follow them as well.
So, obviously other sports still use them, as you have shown, and the dispute resolution is not binding in anyway. It has just become the consensus through the talks at WikiProject Football and at the dispute resolution. I am always open to reopening discussions and working things out amongst all editors, as long as there is a new argument to support the opposing side or you feel that consensus may have changed with new editors possibly having come on board. I just don't like to have the same fights with the same arguments over and over again, as I think you would agree based on your user page. I love WP for the fact that it is a collaboration and would support whatever the consensus is on any matter. Chris1834 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. In this particular instance it makes little difference since so much of the qualifying competition will be over soon (quite a few of the places will be decided in the next few hours, in fact!) Thanks for the explanation. Grutness...wha? 13:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Bro![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for sorting and tidying my horrible newbie wiki-edit/citation! Toitū Otagos ICT1301. Have a beer from Nelson. :) Sunblade1500 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Any time :) Cheers! Grutness...wha? 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of the Beast[edit]

I see another editor removed your edit about "The link between the number 666 and money is strengthened by the fact" - that really does seem to be your own analysis and thus original research. You'd need to find sources as well as show that it's a significant opinion that those passages strengthen the argument. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a significant number of them on the web. But when I supplied one, I was told that it was by a fruit-loop. Given that almost all people who try to find meaning in the book of Revelation can be described in that way, I see no point in trying to add further. You could quite easily say that all the following are loopies - [2], [3], [4] - and they might well be. But it doesn't stop the fact that numerous researchers have connected the wealth of Solomon with the number of the Beast - enough that the view constitutes more than an extremely small minority - and as such the inclusion of this theory is worthy of addition to the article, albeit in a minor way and with caveats, as per WP:FRINGE/PS. The location of the text, within a subsection on alternative theories, already provides those caveats, and the size of the addition (two lines) hardly unweights the article.
In any case, whether there is a connection or not with wealth per se, the plain fact that the number is found three times in the Bible, twice of which are to refer to Solomon's income, is definitely something which should be mentioned in the article. Grutness...wha? 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Stubs etc. Comment[edit]

Hi, given you wrote User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs, I thought you might find Wikipedia:Stub Contest interesting....anyway, drop by if you feel inclined as it might be fun....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I probably won't take part (I'm semi-retired from WP these days, though I still write the odd article or two). I used to be heavily involved in the stub-sorting WikiProject, and the question of what qualified as a stub came up very frequently, which is why I wrote that guideline. I'm glad to see it's still being used! Cheers, and good luck with the contest! Grutness...wha? 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
wanna help me judge it then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I'd like to, but I'd better say no - sadly The Real World (tm) is taking up a lot of time at the moment. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Aaawww, ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archiving[edit]

I noticed your archives at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Grutness/ are not in the user talk namespace. This makes it harder to find the archives, for example for users who search your talk space. See Help:Archiving a talk page#Subpage archive method. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ach - good point. WP was more lenient about that when I started the archive :) And links to the archives were here until I more or less quit Wikipedia a couple of years back. I'll move them back. Grutness...wha? 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solar power by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genesis Energy (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) 09:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Middlemarch, New Zealand[edit]

Hi, I see this place is (a small town) within the limits of Dunedin city and some 80kms from the city centre. I know Dunedin is important but is it really as big as that? Am I misreading the sentence somehow? regards, Eddaido (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Until Dunedin's official boundaries were changed a few years back, it covered the sort of area you'd expect from a city of its size - but with local body reorganisation in New Zealand Dunedin's boundaries were hugely extended to cover a lot of rural area around the city, stretching right up to Waikouaiti in the north, Middlemarch inland, and Henley in the south. It may seem odd, but the city officially covers over 3000 square kilometres, of which only about a tenth is urban. This map shows the limits of the Dunedin City Council's area. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand but do you think other people will understand? Wouldn't this make more sense to all but those people involved in the technicalities of its administration - and there cannot be many of those. "Middlemarch is a small town within the limits of Dunedin city in New Zealand with 300 inhabitants. It lies some 80 km to the west of the Dunedin city centre, at the . . .". As it stands it reads (to those like you and now me that understand it) like a deliberately provocative statement to illustrate its apparently absurd position and for anyone else other than you me and its administrators its just daft. Eddaido (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, and the same with other townships within Dunedin's limits. It's explained on the Dunedin page, and IIRC some other places (such as Mosgiel) also mention it, but it would be worth explanation. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Auckland uses just Auckland not Auckland City - well, according to Wikipedia and this seems to agree Auckland. Would you mind if I just changed it as I suggested above? Eddaido (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the change suggested above is fine. But we should also record within the prose that it is located within the area administered by Dunedin City Council.
Auckland is a completely different situation, since the term refers to both Auckland City and to the Auckland Region. Treating this the same way would be a bad move IMO. I've reworded the article to hopefully explain the situation a bit more clearly. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
But isn't Dunedin the same? What is it you think makes the Dunedin arrangement so different? No where else would have city "limits" 80k away over almost entirely farmland (well certainly not City with houses etc, i.e. nothing suburban). So its a quirk and an embarrassingly lonely one. please ref city limits to see what city limits are thought to be when away from Otago though I'm sure you know perfectly well. Puzzled, Eddaido (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Auckland is in the Auckland Region - a unitary authority which is now coterminous with Auckland city. As such, Auckland can refer to either the city or the region, and both are pretty much the same thing anyway; Dunedin is in the Otago Region - as such Dunedin can only refer to the city (including Middlemarch). Otago is not unitary - Dunedin city is one of several local authorities within it. This isn't any different from other cities which include large areas of rural land. The city limits article doesn't really help at all, since it only refers to three countries - that article should be extended to include information on what is regarded as city limits (and also urban limits, which is completely different) in other parts of the world. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
True I had looked at the Otago region article and decided it was probably overdue for revision (from what you have said above) and that Dunedin City now covered it. So I am wrong and I can't complain about the article as its now re-written by you. I was aware the place existed but came on the article because I was thinking about the novel and didn't mind being distracted. Do you think many of the hits Middlemarch NZ receives are for that reason? Does it get more than equivalent remote settlements do? No matter. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Could be - though it doesn't get that different a number of hits from the likes of Ranfurly, New Zealand or Clyde, New Zealand, so perhaps it doesn't get too many stray hits...

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:AlastairGalbraith.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 11:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Oamaru stonework.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Oamaru stonework.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The status was clearly enough stated on the file as it was, but I've made it a little more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Oamaru houses.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Oamaru houses.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The status was clearly enough stated on the file as it was, but I've made it a little more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthOtago.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:NorthOtago.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The status was clearly enough stated on the file as it was, but I've made it a little more explicit. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Grutness. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Grutness. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 14:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


English words of Arabic origin[edit]

What happened man? You had something good going. The layout was very readable. Then you deleted 40,000 characters?

http://spanish.about.com/cs/historyofspanish/a/arabicwords.htm
http://www.zompist.com/arabic.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I deleted several times that any characters. Characters which were transferred into six smaller, and much more easily loadable articles. All the information is still there, but it's now in separate articles for sections of the alphabet. An article of quarter of a million bytes is very difficult to load unless you have broadband, which is why such large articles are often split into smaller, more accessible, articles. They can be found linked at the top of the main article - the first one is List of English words of Arabic origin (A-B). Grutness...wha? 07:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be better to make those links a larger font so that people notice them. As I did not see them. ~ Opnion: People need to assume broadband. These references are no good if people have to thumb through pages loading back and forth is more than loading just once. The slowest connection that needs to be conceived is 3G on a phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.192.38 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
All text on Wikipedia - excluding footnotes - is of a standard size. The links are well-positioned and prominently displayed at the top of the article, where they should be readily seen by anyone reading through the article. They are also in bold, which makes them easier to spot. And most people presumably can, since this is the first comment on it that I know of in the eight months since the change has taken place, despite an average of 100 people using the main page and 120 using each of the subpages daily.
"People" definitely meed to assume dial-up. Wikipedia isn't just for people in countries where broadband is the norm (let's face it, even in countries like the US 30% of people still use dial-up). Wikipedia is worldwide. Making Wikipedia primarily accessible to broadband users instantly disadvantages a large percentage of the world. Excluding the US and China, the world's largest number of internet users come from India - and only 9% of those 150 million internet users have broadband. Next comes Japan - 100 million internet users, 30% broadband. Brazil has almost the same number of users, but only 18% broadband. Worldwide there are 2.8 billion internet users - only a quarter of those use broadband. If we were to assume broadband, we'd be disadvantaging out 2.1 billion people. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Grutness provided the long answer. Here's the short one: Bigger font - I disagree. 3G - I disagree. Schwede66 03:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vai Lahi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annular (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) 09:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Air Transport Association airport code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westport Airport (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) 08:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hebrides and its (their?) consequences[edit]

Hi there, Grutness. You might like to take a look here. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Why did you add a whole lot of red links to One News (New Zealand)? Ollieinc (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Because they should be there. Redlinks in an article are frequently used as an indication to editors that articles need to be written, and almost all of the people linked are notable enough to warrant articles and should have them. Note too that in all I added 20 links, and 40% of those were blue - quite a number of those people already have articles and should have been linked. The 12 red links, in general, were to people equally worthy of articles - I've already created one of those articles since adding the links (Daniel Faitaua), and hope to do more once I get some spare time. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. Let me know of any more you create, I'd love to help improve them. Ollieinc (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Willdo. Cheers. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhyme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorringe (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) 09:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It was intended (as it usually is if I link to a dab page). Grutness...wha? 09:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Good grief, there's a blast from the past, haven't seen you about in years, your name lit up in Alcatraz in my watchlist! Hope you are well, I think you were one of my earliest mentors on here!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, see what I had to put up with recently on Talk:Annie Hall!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghost ship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waka (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) 08:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of tautological place names for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tautological place names 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/List of tautological place names 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. ansh666 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Wall of China[edit]

Hi there, I see you reverted my removal of Category:Reportedly haunted locations from the above. Please can you advise which other articles this claim appears in as I would like to add a new section on the topic. Many thanks, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations. As you'll see from the comment above this on this page, I'm adding several hundred articles which have sources listed in WP for hauntings to that category and its subcategories, but I'm doing it semi-automatically. Once I've finished doing that I'm hoping to go back and chick which ones need info in the specific articles, but it's quicker to do the semi-automatic process in one go and go back rather than check each one individually first. Grutness...wha? 10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There's another, perhaps more reputable, reference here. Grutness...wha?
I'm not convinced About.com is a reliable source. Let's see what happens at WP:FTN. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 11:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Haunted places[edit]

I realise you are adding material to a list, but you still should not add this category to articles that don't have well-referenced sources stating that they are haunted places. And looking at the sources for the list, I'm pretty dubious they'd all be accepted in the parent article. I am raising this at WP:FTN. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the comments I have made further up this page? I would suggest you do so - it explains why I have added this and all the other articles. Undoing them will make the job of working out where further information is necessary more difficult. I would also ask you to read WP:REF, which nowhere states that the reference needs to be in the same article that is being categorised - only that there need to be references in Wikipedia articles. Which there are. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've brought this up at WP:RSN. I think you are wrong and note that despite being reverted by 2 editors in at least one case you continue to add it. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I did, because I'm working by both the letter and spirit of WP:REF. Note too that, as far as I know, WP:3RR has not been reduced to WP:1RR, so undoing twice is not a problem - especially since both undos (NOT reverts) were accompanied by a valid explanation of why I did so. Unless you can show me whereabouts it states that my addition was incorrect, please do not suggest that (a) I have been reverted when I have not, and (b) that I was wrong to undo those changes. Grutness...wha? 11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to do with 3RR, all to do with working with other editors. WP:3RR does say "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" so I'm not clear what you are relying on when you say undoing is not reverting. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As an admin, you or I can either undo an edit or rollback an edit. If an edit is undone, it is recorded in the edit summary as an undo. It also means I have regarded that edit as a good-faith edit, or needed to make some comment about why I restored it to an earlier version. A rollback is recorded in the edit summary as a revert, and is used in cases of bad-faith edits and vandalism. Thus if something is called a "reversion" it implies that it has been rolled back through vandalism. None of the edits related to these articles were in bad faith, and none of them were vandalism. As to working with other editors, I have tried to do that, by explaining the full reasons for the changes I made. It seems, however, that you and other editors decided that, rather than trying to settle these things in a cooperative manner between us as editors via discussion here or on a talk page, you would head straight to noticeboards such as WP:RSN. This is not a way to increase cooperation between editors, but rather an escalation of a situation which could have been worked out quite quickly and simply. Admittedly, other editors have been more belligerent about the situation (I'm not sure when categorising articles according to information within Wikipedia articles in order to aid searching started to be regarded as "trivia cruft", but it was hardly a conciliatory description of good-faith work; neither am I overjoyed that the same editor is suggesting wasting time and energy on an RFC). Look, I know you're not a newbie here - you've got almost as many edits as me and have been an admin here nearly as long as me. You know how Wikipedia works. So why wasn't there a bit more discussion before jumping straight for a noticeboard? Grutness...wha? 10:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Because this spanned so many articles a personal discussion on your talk page seemed inappropriate. And of course you raised a policy/guideline issue about where references can be that needed other editors' input and was not about a particular article - only RSN or perhaps the talk page of RS was appropriate. I'm very confused with your take on 3RR - you seem to be saying that it doesn't apply to simple content disputes, whereas I am positive that it does. [[WP:3RR says " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," and lists 7 exemptions. If you still stand by your interpretation I'd appreciate it if you'd raise this at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring as I certainly need to know if I'm wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the "so many articles" is only two - Great Wall of China and Valley of the Kings - hardly enough to warrant escalation to noticeboards. All I'm saying about 3RR is that it only applied after three restorations of a page. You seem to have been using my two restorations of one page as some form of reasoning behind why you thought this was a serious issue. I have not and never will overstep the Three Restore Rule, so to have someone to imply that two restorations indicates a problem serious enough to take to a noticeboard (as you did with "I've brought this up at WP:RSN. I think you are wrong and note that despite being reverted by 2 editors in at least one case you continue to add it") is a little eyebrow-raising. That's what seems inexplicable. Ah well, doesn't matter - there are far more interesting things and important things to worry about on wikipedia than this, so I won't be going near those articles again. Please be aware though that a lot of editors do regard the terms revert and undo as differently nuanced, even if their effect and intent is the same. Also please be aware that WP:REF is deliberately worded to allow for cases where a page's references are elsewhere - though it is more usually used for categorising redirects which by definition are referenced on a different article page. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
By so many articles I meant all the ones you added it to, I'm guessing you used the same rationale for them and didn't actually look to see if the articles mentioned haunting - the discussion at RSN is relevant to that and I still think was worth raising there. As for your comment on revert and undue, I did raise that without naming you (but quoting you) at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You don't seem to have ever been involved at at AN3 so that might explain your misunderstanding, but as another editor said there, what the edit summary says doesn't matter, all that matters is if it is one of the 7 exemptions or not. 4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get you blocked. I'm sorry if this has been a nuisance for you but I don't think WP:Ref was ever meant to mean that you don't need citations in articles (as opposed to redirects which are simply 'in' article space but are not articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It got to the stage where there seemed no point in checking whether they did because it looked like all of them did - I'd say about 98% of them mentioned haunting, probably more. I have been involved at AN3, but not for nearly a decade! Perhaps things have changed since I was last there. And there you go again saying that "4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get you blocked", suggesting that 3RR applies in this case even though the undos were not on the same article. Dougweller, you're a good admin - I've been seeing your work here for years - but how come you keep making these veiled threats about something which doesn't apply, hasn't happened, and isn't going to? Grutness...wha? 00:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I apologise if my wording isn't clear enough, although IRC that I made it clear there was no threat at all to you. None whatsover. It never occurred to me to consider 3RR in relationship to your edits. I meant "4 good faith, well-reasoned reverts can get an editor blocked", I simply used 'you' in a general way. That's the way I speak, which is clearly too ambiguous. Once again, no threat ever considered. And I wanted to understand your WP:REF mention. By the way, the reason I said you hadn't been involved in AN3 was simply that you can search contributors and I didn't find you, but I may have done the search wrong. And I can understand why after going through a large number of articles and finding they did involve haunting, you stopped. I hope we can get this behind us and that you will aceept that I never considered 3RR in relationship to you. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Truce, I hope :)
Fair enough - perhaps I was reading too much into things (it can happen easily enough in Wikipedia arguments!). As to my name not appearing at AN3, it may have been back in those primitive times in the mid-2000s when that page was part of AN/I! No hard feelings for all of this, I hope. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we're cool now. Apologies again for not being clear enough. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stub template that you put up for del way back in 2006[edit]

Hi, regarding this deletion discussion: both were deleted on 28 February 2006, but Category:Government agency stubs was recreated on 1 July 2013‎, but has no stub template. Should Template:Gov-agency-stub be undeleted? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Even excusing the direct application of a stub category without template (which suggests that the creator of the category doesn't know much about sub sorting) I'd say no. This looks reasonable as a container category, with nothing but subcategories - and the two subcategories look fine. But the same problem arises as in the original deletion - a general gov-agency-stub would cut right across stub hierarchies for no apparent purpose. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Simulated haunting[edit]

In case you missed it, there's been some talk page response to your renaming of Haunted attraction to Haunted attraction (simulated). --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Kosovo stubs[edit]

Do you think Category:Kosovo stubs can be unprotected? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, to be honest - I've been away from stub-sorting for quite a while and haven't been watching how Kosovo-related items have been faring around Wikipedia. You could try unprotecting it and see whether it survives OK, with the option of reprotecting if needed - other than that, try running it past Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Bonhomme[edit]

Could I direct your attention to an issue raised at an article you created Talk:Grand Bonhomme? Hoping you can help. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page again. I'm still seeing elevations all over the place for this one. sigh... --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Auckland Student Movement for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Auckland Student Movement 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/Auckland Student Movement 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Locator maps[edit]

Hi there James, I hope you are well. I've looked up who has produced locator maps for rivers and it turns out it was you! I was wondering whether you could either produce some more, or show me how to do it, or team up on this. The background to this is that I'd like to add locator maps to the three Christchurch Rivers that already have an article (Avon, Heathcote, and Styx), and write an article for Dudley Creek, which has become notable through all the flooding that it causes. How can we go about this? Do you have access to PD material, or do the waterways need to be drawn from scratch? Schwede66 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I'm fine, thanks :) Hope you are too. I've not done any Christchurch area maps to the best of my knowledge, and I don't think I've got a PD map of that area (most of the ones I used were either from plain PD outline maps or using a composite of several different maps. In each case I drew the waterways largely from scratch. Easiest think would probably be to find a Landsat image of Christchurch (e.g., this one) and trace coastline and rivers over it on a photoshop layer using other maps for guidance, then removing the original - I could have a go at that if you like. Do you want the four rivers to be in the same map, or separate maps? Grutness...wha? 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm good - thanks! That sounds marvellous. I was thinking of separate maps. If you want to go to the extent of tracing coast lines, we might as well do the Avon Heathcote Estuary and Lyttelton Harbour. There's no article for Brooklands Lagoon yet. Let me have a go at Dudley Creek, as it's hard to spot, but we went on a bike trip along it the other weekend. I took heaps of photos, so should be figure out where it goes. I'm tracing it in Google Earth and are assuming that the output can be read into photoshop easy enough; note that I don't have a copy of photoshop. Schwede66 01:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
OK - things are a bit busy at the moment but I'll try to get onto it in the next few days. If you haven't seen anything in about a week give me a prod to remind me. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pre-1910 film stubs[edit]

Category:Pre-1910 film stubs, 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Angela D'Audney[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)