User talk:Peterkingiron/Archive 3

Walrasiad

Hi, Peterkingiron. We haven't been introduced yet. You and I took part on move on João VI of Portugal a few days ago. One user, called Walrasiad, has made harsh accusations towards us on the ANI. Please take a look at it. --Lecen (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad said that you (as well as others) voted in favor of the move because I asked you to. I thought you could clear that out and tell them that I did not do that. --Lecen (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Walrasiad, GoodDay and SergeWoodzing are giving the impression that there is a big deal about the name move since they keep discussin among themselves. The latter two editors are well known to be active on move discussions anytime it involves the use of foreign names. I don't have anything against them taking part on such discussions, but to accuse other editors of misbehavior simply because they have a different opinion other than theirs is unfair. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Comments added to both pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Saw your last reply.[1] Take a look at the message writen by SergeWoodzing just above yours: "I think it was - supporters seem to have been acting together" I find unhealth and unnecessary this kind of behavior. However, it would be great if you could comment here. You need to make clear that you were not asked to vote. Sorry for bothering you with this. --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Alfred Faulkner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page C.B. (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) 10:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)  DonePeterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of the British canal system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land drainage (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) 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (disambiguation)

Since you were involved in Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), you may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwan_island_group, since it is one of the items listed at the disambiguation page. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Red Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Daily Herald

Shanghai Defence Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjab Regiment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)  Done

Taiwanese archipelago

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. The article has been expanded with numerous sources. A move request is also on the way at Talk:Taiwan island group. Thanks. 203.145.92.173 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

World oil market chronology from 2003

This was a great solution. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category interwikis

Hi Peter, no particular reason for calling you on this except for your experience here. Can you tell why the interwiki links come up as redlinks instead of interwikis at Category:Service companies of the United States? – Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I fixed it. There must be something wrong in the parameter-handling code in Template:category diffuse. I'll leave a note on the template talk page. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Stoics

Would you please see my comment here? Moonraker (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Fooians

discussion moved at your request from User talk:BrownHairedGirl

After initial misgivings, I have been supporting your nominations to rename Old Fooians. However, I think there will have to be a point at which we will draw a line on this. I will oppose renames on Old Etonians, Old Harrovians, Old Salopians. and those for other major public schools. My object in writing this message is to try and agree with you where that line should be. It seems to me that the starting point ought to be the schools of the Public Schools Act 1868, but I suspect that there are a few major public schools that have been founded since. Membership of the Headmasters Conference is too widespread to provide a satisfactory criterion. Any ideas?

I have bookmarked your talk page, but it might be better to have the discussion on mine, which is likely to rather less active than yours or on some project talk page. However, do not involve other regular contributors to the Old Fooian discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter

Thanks for your message, and for your constructive participation in the CFDs (not just cos you support the recent noms, but because you take care to consider them carefully). I had actually been thinking of raising the issue with you, so it was good timing that you got here first.

As you will have noticed, what I have been working on so far is a) ambiguous Old Fooians, and b) obscure Old Fooians (i.e. those where the school name is not the "Foo" in "Fooian"). I think that I have now done nearly all of those, so apart from any remaining oddities that I find in further trawls, I intend to take a break from these for a while. Getting rid of categories like Old Stoics, Old Dolphins and old Mid Whitgiftians has been a huge improvement, and after that it's time to draw back and review the rest.

As to the rest of them, I have developed a few very tentative notions for whenever I get back to them:

• Old Etonians is a slam dunk keep. 2,000+ articles on notable Old Etonians, and the term is very widely used.
• Not so sure on the other old major public schools. I haven't yet seen evidence that their "Old Fooians" terms are anywhere near as widely used, and my experience of researching the "Old Gowers" suggests that caution is needed, so I have an open mind on them. But, note the google news hits e.g. 4,290 for "old Etonian" but only 5 for "old Reptonian" ... and the 17 "old Alleynian" hits are mostly about the rugby club.
• Most of the remaining "Old Fooians" seem to be those more minor schools where the Foo directly relates to the school name, which is difft to the obscure ones I have nominated so far. I have toyed with the idea of dividing that group between those where Foo is a major town (so the "Fooian" may be widely used for the town), and those where the "Foo" is a smaller place or not a place, but again unsure on that

I have not been able to find any other usages of your phrase "major public school", so I have invented my own methodology for classifying the remainder -- please feel free to critique it. I am also unpersuaded that there is a relevant distinction any more between Grammar schools and public Schools, at least when we get beyond the most prestigious public schools; post-1975, the distinction between grammar and public school has become very blurred. My hunch is that some of the Grammar Schools churned out a lot of notable people, particularly in the Northern cities ... and that what matters in terms of these categories is not the history of the school, but the recognisability of its Old Fooian term. It may be that some grammar schools pass that test, and some public schools fail it, but my core idea throughout all these discussions has been simply to apply the WP:COMMONNAME test: what matters here is whether the term is recognisable to our readers and editors, so I don't see any need to make a hard-and-fast distinction. If a hedge school's "Old Fooian" term is widely understood, that's fine by me.

As I say, those are early thoughts on how to view the remainder. If and when I do proceed, my notion so far has been to do some triage:

• Get a list of all the remaining Old Fooian categories.
• Exclude all those listed in the Public Schools Act 1868
• Exclude all of the Eton Group
• Exclude all those which are noted in Monnraker's list as containing more than 100 biographical articles (or use an updated list if anyone makes it)

All those "excluded categories" are those where I think that individual further assessment is needed, because on a few crude measures they have a plausible claim to be of particular significance. I think that it's a bigger group than you were suggesting, but I want to clarify the next phase by focusing on the "minor" schools.

At a rough guess, that will leave about 50 Old Fooian categories on the "remainder list". My instinct is to do a trial group of about five of them, to test the consensus. It may be that editors don't want to go further than removing the obscure and ambiguous, and if here is a clear consensus in that regard, I think that would be the point to stop. OTOH, if there is a consensus to rename that sample, I would proceed with the remainder in batches of about ten.

If those were renamed, that would leave us with my "excluded categories", those which appear likely to be more recognisable. After my look at the Old Gowers, I think that they need individual consideration.

How does that sound?