User talk:Mike Selinker: Difference between revisions

Archives
	August 12, 2005 – February 28, 2006; March 1, 2006 – August 31, 2006; September 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006; January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007; RfA;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:44, 6 October 2007

Say stuff here.--Mike Selinker 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion advice request

Hi, I read your recent posts at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29 and agreed with the basic thrust of your statements. I am trying to argue for the retention of Category:Duke Ellington, currently on the chopping block over here. Is there any advice on seeking an exception from the general purge that seems to be under way (like that which was apparently made for Category:White Zombie)? I have made several posts to the relevant discussion and am not sure if my arguments are getting any traction. Thanks for any help you can give. InnocuousPseudonym 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. InnocuousPseudonym 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music on WP:UCFD again

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37_(T) 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz albums

This is rich Mike. After all the discussions on how to accomplish categorizing albums by genre, you nominate all such albums for merger. What ends are you even working towards? Comprehensive coverage obviously is not one of them. Quit taking everything so personal, stalking me, and take criticism like a man Mike. You act like a baby. (Mind meal 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Religious radio

Thanks for ploughing through them all to categorize correctly! Johnbod 13:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. G. Wodehouse locations redirects categories

Hello. I see you have removed the categories from the redirects of two famous P. G. Wodehouse locations, Market Blandings (diff) and Market Snodsbury (diff). I'd like to know your rationales for doing this.

Indeed, redirects are routinely categorized when needed, and appear for this reason in italic in the category lists; some redirects are even created with the express purpose of being categorized with something the target page can't be. The wiki software was specially updated to allow redirects to be categorized. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories_for_redirect_pages

So, without some valid WP:reason, I'll have to revert. — Komusou ^talk @ 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to your de-categorizing Middle-earth redirects. Currently there's a perfect and useful system of categorical index for M-e topics (under construction in some parts), to be used instead of 'List of smth'. I reinstall for now M-e categories, but not "Fictional lakes" etc. Súrendil 10:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. If you have a scheme which you're all following for the Middle-earth categories, by all means follow it. I don't think it makes sense to do so for the more general "Fictional (X)" categories, though, because if every "Geography of (X)" article had all of its rivers in "Fictional rivers," that category would be almost entrely redirects.--Mike Selinker 13:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

Oooh. Just wandered into you here. I met you at Origins at the Stonehenge discussion. I was the guy with the English accent. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim,}^dagnabbit!) 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yourself. (Feel free to work on that Stonehenge (game) article, cuz I can't.)--Mike Selinker 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's one of the things I'd like to get to. Unfortunately, I don't (yet) have my own copy.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim,}^dagnabbit!) 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply on the admin comment for Category:California porn stars

I just wanted to reply briefly to the admin comment you made on the cfd for Category:California porn stars. You mentioned that "The result of the debate was no consensus. Parallelism suggests the "porn stars" hierarchy should mirror the "actors" hierarchy, though this will be an outlier until it does so. So the creators of this category may wish to build out the categories for other states if they want to see this category survive a second CfD debate."

I wanted to clear up two things in regards to the parrallelism comment. First, I would probably recommend that a good compromise, if this were renominated, is that California porn stars be upmerged into Category:California actors. (Part of my problem with the original cfd nomination was that it wanted to upmerge into Category:American actors, which isn't the correct upmerge.) The reason I say that is that Category:California people by occupation will probably work best if it is kept to top level categories similar to Category:People by occupation. In fact, I'd almost suggest creating Category:California entertainers and moving all the actors and musicians and other California entertainers into that.

Second, you appeared to be concerned about a lack of parralelism for porn star categories for other states. However note that a very large bulk of porn stars also happen to be under Category:People from California, so only a small handful of states would at all need a state category for porn stars. Also keep in mind that not all states have a People by Occupation subcategory, so until that is done it doesn't make sense to create a subcategory for that within those particular states. A big reason California has this subdivision by occupation structure is because of the huge size of Category:People from California.

So to sum up the reasons you see a lack of parrallelism here are 1) most states don't have porn star articles, and 2) most states don't have People by Occupation subcategories. California is an exception because of its size and its large number of porn stars, and the subcategory helps split them out from the other sorts of California actor articles (which California also has a large number of). Therefore I wouldn't recommend deleting the category simply because it isn't reflected by other states with fewer actor biographies. Dugwiki 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (a) I know nothing about the geographic density of porn stars, or for that matter almost nothing about porn stars, and (b) I think the people by occupation by state subcategories are on pretty shaky ground to begin with. A category like this probably doesn't gain much support as an outlier, so if it doesn't gain some friends, a second go-round would probably result in a deletion. Just my read on things, though.--Mike Selinker 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply, on a) you'll have to either take my word for it or examine the articles to verify my statement's validity. But having actually done a previous category cleanup on both actor and porn star articles I can say that my opinion is that the great majority of both are articles that fall under Category:People from California (which makes sense since so much media in both mainstream and adult industries is produced in that state). As to b), the question of dividing state biographies by occupation is a separate question, and one I recommended discussing within WP:California. I'm just going by categorization scheme for that state that's been in place for over a year. If editorial consensus is to change that scheme, then that's something that would have to be discussed in a broader thread. Also on b), I do agree that I could support merging the California porn star subcategory to the California actor category. What I didn't agree to was taking those articles completely out of Category:California people by occupation, which merging to Category:American porn stars would do. Taking them out entirely defeats the purpose of making the by-occupation scheme a theoretically complete subdivision. Dugwiki 14:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's reasonable. I'm just telling you the way I would go if in three months this category came up again. Someone else may close it in that circumstance, though.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds good. As to the broader overall question, I did post a thread recently at WP:California asking for their feedback on Category:California people by occupation but I haven't had any replies one way or another yet. I figured that Wiki project would be the one most interested in how the California bios are organized, so I'm kind of surprised nobody commented yet. Anyway, I'm still in the process of a general category cleanup on Category:People from California (there's a lot of articles to review, so it's taking a while), so if that works out well then I'll probably ask some of the other state projects or the Biography project to see if other large states are interested in doing something similar. Doing it all from scratch for a state is a big undertaking, so I'm obviously not keen on starting it unless the people who actually use those articles frequently think it would be worthwhile. Dugwiki 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book terrorists

Your position on this cat doesn't sound like you at all. I'd have though you'd be making Alex's point to others. Well, it's not the first time you've surprised me [1] ;) ×Meegs 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Trek stars

Hi Mike, I note that you created Category:Star Trek stars in 2004. It no longer seems to be meeting a need and I have nominated it to be upmerged. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFLretired

I made a note about the removal of your edit on the talk page. It was actually discussed and while I do agree with you on a personal level; there is a general consensus to deal with. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by educational institution

All the naming issues aside, what's your take on Category:People by educational institution, and its leaves like Category:Dartmouth College people. It seems like an unnecessary layer to me, but I'm not sure it's worth the monumental effort it'd take to clean-up. ×Meegs 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like umbrellas. I wouldn't be sad to see these uncoupled, but neither do I see them as a problem.--Mike Selinker 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do too, usually, and especially when there isn't a grandparent that could fill the same role. I don't like the deletion of eponymous band cats, for example, because it leaves no short path between the songs and albums and members cats (aside from typing-in the url). Most of these cats, though, contain only alumni and faculty subcats (under varying names), and maybe a presidents cat that could easily be tucked into faculty. If we did get rid of the people hierarchy, the alumni and faculty cats would still be right next to each other in Category:Dartmouth College. If you look, you'll see that most schools, at least in the U.S., don't have this cat, so it's kind of the norm now anyway. The inconsistency bothers me as much as the unnecessary layer. In any case, I'm happy to not pursue this. ×Meegs 00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way. I'd probably support the effort, but it's too much work for me.--Mike Selinker 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sleep on this for a few weeks. Bookmark that root category. If I act, I'll probably start with a discussion advertised to or from there. Thanks for the sounding board ×Meegs 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political views by candidate

Hi, while I appreciate your efforts in getting CfDs to closure, unfortunately by closing out the current CfD you appear to have ignored all of the previous discussion and taken a completely new position after a very clear consensus had developed using Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates, which the original proposer supported. I am loath to tell you how to use WP, as I suspect you have far more barnstars than I could ever hope for 8-), but if you are unhappy with the category name then surely you should have contributed to the CfD or should implement the consensus while opening a new CfD yourself. From my position the name you have unilaterally chosen doesn't actually appear any better than the previous choice, being non globalized and ambiguous, and offers a potential soapbox for any one with a political axe to grind anywhere in the world. Ephebi 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid response, Speedy Gonzales! I've not done a DRV before, nor am I going to be online for much time over the next two weeks. However I'll try to kick it off but probably will not have much time to see it through. Ephebi 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done it, would you mind checking its in order? Ephebi 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Thanks for fixing this article as part of a general cleanup. We had previously discussed a name change for that article that would go in a different direction. Since the article covers economic, cultural, and philosophical theiories as well as politicial views I'd proposed naming it simply "Views of Lyndon LaRouche", to which there was no objection. I'd been meaning to make the move but when you moved it I figured I'd better make the change that had already been discussed. I realize that this will introduce an odd entry in Category:Political positions of politicians, but nothing is ever perfect in this complicated world. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles in the set (except the Buchanan one) are all patterned on the same format, so this one's a bit of an outlier anyway. I think the options are too either bring its format into line with the others, or give it a different name like you suggest. Whatever works.--Mike Selinker 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing categories from redirects

Why are you removing categories from redirects wholesale? Kappa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because redirects shouldn't have categories unless they are part of encyclopedic maintenance projects like Category:Middle-earth redirects or Category:Champion Digimon. There is no article on Milka cow, so the redirect shouldn't show up in the category:Fictional cattle, which doesn't purport to be an exhaustive list of fictional cows.--Mike Selinker 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you get the idea that "redirects shouldn't have categories unless they are part of encyclopedic maintenance projects"? Kappa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Champion Digimon looks like a regular category to me. Kappa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple parts of Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects. The ones I've been deleting are not part of categories just for redirects, not alternate names for articles, and so on. They're just names of minor characters which don't have, and do not appear to be intended to have, articles written about them. As such they're just among the many hundreds of characters who are fictional whatevers that don't have articles. Not every player on the Red Sox has an article, and we don't have Category:Boston Red Sox players filled up with the names of people we're not writing about. So too with these. However, in some cases we're trying to complete an encyclopedic list of some things (see the Categorization of list entries section), and in those cases it makes sense to have redirects fill up a category that's bounded. But not when the category's unbounded.--Mike Selinker 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional carnivores

Hi Mike. The closer of the Fictional carnivores CfD merged all of the non-leaf cats into Category:Fictional animals. I think this was a mistake, though, because you were the only person who explicitly advocated merger beyond Category:Fictional mammals. Since fictional mammals still exists, and is still fairly well populated, I am going to move all of those categories like Category:Fictional cattle back there. That is, unless you are going open a new topic suggesting that we collapse fictional mammals too. ×Meegs 10:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds great. I was just about to post something saying we should pick one or the other. Keeping the Vertebrates > Mammals heirarchy makes sense.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I was on the fence about even this much merger, but I have to admit that this looks pretty good. ×Meegs 17:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It will when all those "in literature" categories are gone.--Mike Selinker 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. With fictional mustelids gone, Category:Fictional stoats, Category:Fictional weasels, Category:Fictional wolverines, Category:Fictional martens, Category:Fictional minks, Category:Fictional otters, and Category:Fictional ferrets no longer have a tie to the real world tree. I don't have the heart to clog Category:Mustelids with them all. Do you? ×Meegs 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure do. Otters, minks, and such should all have their own categories anyway.--Mike Selinker 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsport infobox categories

Hi Mike. Thanks for your support for my proposal to rename the motorsport infobox categories, and for picking up that Category:Motor racing venues in Wisconsin was missed in the recent bulk rename. I found another category that was missed in the rename (Category:Defunct motor racing venues in Canada), so I split the rename proposal into two sections, and recorded your support for both. I hope you don't mind. DH85868993 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: the CfD for Flying Pokemon

Just a heads up, but the nom goofed slightly. It appears that the CfD was supposed to be for Category:Fictional characters who can fly and some of its subs, including the Pokemon.

You may want to comment on the whole CfD as well as just the one sub.

- J Greb 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSR categorization

Please read the CfD results more closely. The category was renamed (absurdly, in my opinion), not abolished. You keep deleting the new, renamed category from the article about the company itself. --Orange Mike 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Interpreters

Would you please restore the category? The newly-created category is being used to hold human beings whose job is Interpreter. It is not arecreation. Thanks. Otto4711 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (of sorts)

Hey : )

Haven't seen you around WP:UCFD lately and thought I'd use the moment as an excuse to say "hi" : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yourself. There seem to be two tasks at UCFD lately: try to stop people from deleting everything, and prune around the edges of a system we put together works pretty well. I feel confident that the former has an appropriate level of defense, and the latter's not too significant. So I've found other category-related things to attend to. But I check back in every now and then.--Mike Selinker 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I (gulp) part of that appropriate level of defence? - jc37 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuh-huh.--Mike Selinker 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to explain what my initial response to that was:

There is a moment in Flash When Max Mercury says to Wally: "You don't play fair", and Wally responds "No, I play for keeps." (Granted it was one of those "fate of the world in the balance" moments...)

"So that was my initial thought/response: "You don't play fair" : p - jc37 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I'm also thinking of the moment in Sabrina in which Linus is told that the reason that David gave for not going to the office was because he didn't feel he had to.. Linus was there. - jc37 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you think I've gone insane with the last several days of nominations... - jc37 08:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRLINE cat change

Hi, I noticed you made a change to the category name for the airlines project from Category:WikiProject Airlines Members to Category:WikiProject Airlines members. The WP:AIRPORTS project also seems to have a non-standard name Category:WikiProject Airports participants. Not sure if it needs to be changed to Category:WikiProject Airports members also but thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. To me it just seems a word and either would be appropriate :) → AA ^(talk) — 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP TIMETRACE category

Good day. You have nominated the Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer Friends for renaming. I am the creator of it. Please be aware that this is not a "participants" category, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer/Participants This is a category for those who don't have the time for full participation but want to help with small tasks. Don't see anything against policy in preserving the name, please provide your reasons if you disagree or please withdraw the nomination if you agree. AN alternative, if you dislike the wording, could be to move it to a sub/cat of Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer participants, perhaps Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer participants/auxiliary Thank you Daoken 10:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It SImple

I created the WP:Keep It Simple with the help of two other editors. The category User KIS which you want to rename as participants, is not for participant, the project has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians using the KIS (Keep It Simple Labels), it cannot be renamed to Participants or Members. Please review your nomination ℒibrarian2 11:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I created that category (not the project, that was Librarian2). The category indicates who uses those labels not membership.Heltzen ◩ 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:31, 6 October 2007 edit Librarian2 (talk \| contribs) 807 edits m →‎Keep It SImple ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:44, 6 October 2007 edit undo Heltzen (talk \| contribs) 311 edits →‎Keep It SImple: not membership Next edit →
Line 155:		Line 155:

	I created the WP:Keep It Simple with the help of two other editors. The category User KIS which you want to rename as participants, is not for participant, the project has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians using the KIS (Keep It Simple Labels), it cannot be renamed to Participants or Members. Please review your nomination <small><font face="georgia">[[User:Librarian2\|<span style="background:Steelblue;color:#fff;">'''ℒibrarian'''</span>]][[User talk:Librarian2\|<span style="background:green;color:#fff;">'''2'''</span>]]</font></small> 11:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)		I created the WP:Keep It Simple with the help of two other editors. The category User KIS which you want to rename as participants, is not for participant, the project has no members as such. This category is for Wikipedians using the KIS (Keep It Simple Labels), it cannot be renamed to Participants or Members. Please review your nomination <small><font face="georgia">[[User:Librarian2\|<span style="background:Steelblue;color:#fff;">'''ℒibrarian'''</span>]][[User talk:Librarian2\|<span style="background:green;color:#fff;">'''2'''</span>]]</font></small> 11:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
			:Hello there. I created that category (not the project, that was Librarian2). The category indicates who uses those labels not membership.<font face="georgia">[[User:heltzen\|Heltzen]][[User talk:heltzen\|◩]]</font> 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)