This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.
I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to
leave a message on my talk page.
If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
WikiProject Women writers Invitation
Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Happy New Year!
Dear BrownHairedGirl, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Hi, I know it probably falls out of your area of interests on Wikipedia but I wondered if I could possibly ask you to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State and give your comments as an admin? It's a little-edited topic and, considering the lack of third-party feedback in the article, I'm worried that the confrontation could escalate. Seasons greetings, —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at the dispute there, and have formed some preliminary views. There is clearly quite a large divide between the two sides, and the issues are big, so I am going to sleep on this and have another look tomorrow. Then I will respond properly.
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm sorry to bring this up again - I had hoped that this dispute was over but the user has returned to the article. He/she is continuing to ignore my comments (as well as those of two other users) and is getting increasingly belligerent and incoherent. (I suspect that part of the problem results from the user's grasp of English language.) I have never come across a situation like this before on Wikipedia and wondered what options there are to proceed further? Given the user's apparent inability to engage in reasonable and productive discussion - and the fact that his/her arguments keep shifting - I am pessimistic about the likelihood of a good outcome. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why do you add "Men's/Women's handball" to it? It's clear from the article of the athlet what sport we are talking about and all is linked within the template. Seems useless to me (and blow up the template) and all those changes were made without a discussion (or?). I reverted a few before i saw you made a mass change... Juse seems odd to me. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked your contribs, and find these 41 edits by you, in which you somehow reverted the changes I had made to those templates. (It's odd that you somehow did so in a way which gave me no automatic notification, since I would have been automatic notified if you had used rollback or undo).
Anyway, to the substance:
Those changes did not "blow up" any template. They added two words to them, which did not disrupt their format or integrity.
The reason I added those words was because it seemed bizarre to me that the templates did not indicate what sport or gender was involved, and I could see no reason for omitting that info -- there was no space constraint.
Unfortunately, it is often not clear what sport is involved, because a significant minority of sportspeople play more than one sport. Even if it was only one article which fitted that description, it would be worth havi g the info just for that one article -- because it imposes no cost on the other articles.
The factor which prompted me to make the changes was that I was categorising the articles by gender. AS with most ball games, men and women compete separately in handball, so gender is a defining attribute of the player. However, a huge swathe of articles on handball players did not explicitly state the gender of the player -- not in the body text, not in any infobox, nor category, nor template. I then spotted that the gender must be indicated by the navbox, but I was astonished to see that the navbox did not display this info. I could see no reason to limit it, so per WP:BOLD I added it.
So now, I ask you -- in what way has any of these templates been improved by your removal of this information? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
The gender is given in the article, infobox, lead (both link to current national/club team) and category (male/female handball player) (and if not, i add them when i go around after big tournaments). So there is no need for having it on the template(s), which is the same in more sports aswell. Never was someone doubting it or anything, you are the first. With your version, there is just more text at the template title, which do "blow" it up, imo. Even the template links to the male/female team. It's just not needed... Or, maybe just add "France women's/men's squad" if you need it. Like i said, no one was ever questioning it. Kante4 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote at length above, dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of the articles do not indicate gender in text or infobox. They do so by category only because I added it, but no article should carry specific info only in a category.
What you mean that this will "blow up" a template? In English, that phrase means "explode" or break. Nothing you say gives any indication that these templates are exploded or broken. The addition of two words does not significantly expand the text.
The fact that the template links to the gender and sport is no substitute for the failure to display either the gender or sport. The reader should not have to follow a link to identify its content.
When i visit an article about a player, i know if it is male or female, so a male will not play for the female team. Logical to me and never heard negative from anyone, so not a problem. But ok... Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kante4, this is a very odd discussion, because you appear to be simply ignoring the points I make. For example, many of the articles do not identify the gender of the player. They should, but many of them do not.
So, including EHF/IHF should be good or? Any by the same logic, FIBA should not be enought eh? I know, cherry picking or whatever but i'm out. Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kante4, if you are simply going to stop discussion, then I will restore the changes.
Nahh, you can undo it if you want. I get your point somehow, tbh. I just don't like "it" looks. Maybe we can work that out somehow? Kante4 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why omit the name of the sport? How exactly does that help the reader?
The sport should indeed be described the article. But many sportspeople play more than one sport, and for those players, the scope of the navbox cannot be inferred from the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In every article about handball players, the sport is mentioned in the article and no one plays another sport. (Those articles i came across, and that were many). Kante4 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should be very careful before making assertions such as In every article about handball players [snip] no one plays another sport. You do qualify that assertion by restrictin the scope to thge articles you came across -- but do you really think that you have personally checked this on every single en.wp article on a handball player? Really?
Maybe earlier there were some. Those templates are created from 2011 WC on i think (Maybe 2008 OG). And there is no one i believe. Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there are some. As said above, the templates are from 2011 on or so. And there are only a few, if any... So, i see no need for the sport included. Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the tools which would generate the lists easily, so I am using AWB to scan the pages. It's slow, but put of the first few hundred players, there are dozens playing other sports. I will post the full list when it is complete.
In the meantime, please clarify again:
a) exactly what harm is done by including the word "handball". It takes only 9 extra characters (including the space)
b) even if the number of handballers playing only one sport is small, why label the templates in such a way as to be misleading on some pages, when there is a very simple way of making it clear on all pages?
Note too that a huge proportion of the handball articles are currently one-line stubs, many with a single source to a handball database (often apparently create to fill out the links on the navboxes). By their very nature, those articles will not reveal whether the person played any other sport ... but if and when these articles are expanded, that info will be added where relevant. It is very unwise to base assumptions about the involvement of players in other sports when the sources used do not reveal such info. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said, i find it useless but can understand your view. I said everythig above of how small the number of players (since 2011 when those templates started) will be (i believe). Kante4 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm currently trying to sort out some of the categories and subcats relating to organized crime (a big mess of repetitive and redundant categories), and ran across this edit, which makes no sense to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AFilms_about_the_Irish_Mob&type=revision&diff=757813580&oldid=729023135 What is the purpose of putting piped links in categories like that? I've already removed a couple of those categories as being too broad, and at least one should be deleted altogether (Irish Mob and Irish-American organized crime are two ways of saying the same thing, so the question is, should the more common term be kept, or the more encyclopedic?). I don't often work on categories for precisely these reasons; sometimes, you just wander into a thicket. With "gangster"-related categories and articles, in particular, it seems, you run into a lot of fanboys who are obsessed with the topic but not necessarily great editors. At any rate, can you answer the question about piped links, as I don't recall seeing that before. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '4514:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They control the category sort order. It's commonly done when category names are prefixed by the name of the parent. Eponymous categories also have their lead article categorized with a space, to sort them to the head. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as mud. This is another reason I rarely wander into the thicket of categorization: I find the rules often impenetrable. But, I feel this is also part of the reason I often find redundant and useless categories: they are being created by editors who also do not understand the rules of categorization and how some categories are useful and many others are not. So, back into the thicket I go, to try to make some sense of it... ---The Old JacobiteThe '4515:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hi TheOldJacobite, and Happy New Year. I hope you are recovering well from '15 and '45. <grin>
First, the "piped links" are not actually piped links. They are sort keys, which determine how the articles are sorted in category listings. So, for example [[Category:Gangster films|Aaaaaa]] would make the article appear under the letter "A" at the top of the listing for Category:Gangster films ... whereas [[Category:Gangster films|]] makes it appear under "Z".
Sometimes, an article uses the same sort key for all or most categories, in which case the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT}} makes everyting easier and cleaner. So for example, in the diff you linked above, {{DEFAULTSORT:Irish mob}} would have save the need to put an identical sort key on 4 categories.
You're right, categories can be a bit of a thicket. Especially in topic areas, where, as you rightly note, the topic tends to attract those with more enthusiasm than editing experience. That's one of the joys of Wikipedia <wry grin>.
FWIW, my own approach is to try get a broad feel for categorisation of any particular topic are before dipping in. Some the category trees can be quite complex, esp when there are multiple attributes at play. Your strategy of focusing on organised crime sounds to me like aq good way to unravel things.
Thanks, both for your response and your encouragement. And, yes, overcategorization is one of the banes of my existence. I mostly deal with it in regard to film articles – which is how I started looking at the organized crime articles, since many film articles related to organized crime are overpopulated with redundant categories. Into the thicket we go, machete in hand, and 6 months later we have to do it again. But, we enjoy this, right? Happy New Year! ---The Old JacobiteThe '4516:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your close was a fine, if not great, idea. However, it begs the question of what to do with the remainder of categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. I got the impression you didn't want me to nominate any more at CfD. Were you thinking of speeding the rest per IAR, or did you want this RfC to occur and conclude first? The RfC wouldn't be for discussing whether the categories should exist, but merely if the users should be removed from the redlinked categories, so I don't think there should be a bunch of categories in limbo here based on an RfC nobody may ever get around to requesting. Alternatively the third option would be for me to nominate them and you speedy close them as you did this one, but I feel a speedy deletion per IAR would likely be more prudent than that. Thoughts? VegaDark (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This series of IAR closures (here's a list of 8 of them) has solely been to remove from CFD a series of repetitive discussions about category pages created by one editor solely to fill redlinks on the user pages of editors who appear happy to have retained them as redlinks.
I have not taken a view in the substantive merits of these categories.
CFDs on other categories, which were not created to fill jokey redlinks, I will leave to run their course and be closed in the usual way. So continue to nominate as you see fit -- I will apply this early close logic only those which I find to be part of this fill-the-redlinks-regardless-of-utlity exercise. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Literally everything in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians is exactly such a category - a category that was redlinked that was recently created just to make it no longer a redlink. 100% of everything in there I believe your early close rationale could be applied to, which is why I mentioned just speedying them without the need of a nomination. However, if that's what you would prefer, I can do that. VegaDark (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
got blocked for his efforts - as well as earflaps btw - the legacy both left is something no one has gone in to do a forensic analysis of the weirdnesses in their understanding of categories - suppose no one ever will :( JarrahTree14:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree:. Thanks. Hadn't realised it was created by a blocked editor, just that it was something which needed fixing. Over the years, we have had a steady trickle of editors who do weird categorisations (the first I recall was User:Pastorwayne, nearly 10 years ago) ... and sometimes there is an ad-hoc taskforce which mounts a prompt cleanup exercise, and sometimes it's a bit more ad hoc. Seems that this is one of the latter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...or if someone did - it would be of benefit to someone who might want to do a potential case analysis study of idiosyncratic loners wandering through wikipedias categories unchecked and unflinching in creating the world in their mind which runs contrary to consensually created basic principals of how wikipedia works... wwwkix and earflaps really left a legacy of a mess no one seems interested in... If I was really nuts I would try to go in - but hmmm ... JarrahTree14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection of speculative fiction novels and series
Hello BrownHairedGirl I ask you to express opinion about the latest redirections of User:SnowFire. I ask you to assess the expediency I of merging articles by him, including the elimination of articles about award-winning speculative fiction novels, for example The Apocalypse Codex & The Hidden Family. Because I'm not sure of the correctness of such actions.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not actually diffs. See WP:DIFF for how to link to a diff. It really makes life a lot easier if diffs of contested edits are included in a discussion.
Anyway, I followed the links and found the diffs. The first 3 items on your list are unexplained redirections where the edit summary gives no reason for redirecting a page with substantive content. The 4th one[1] does give a reason, so I have not reverted that.
Feel free to revert the 4th one yourself if you want to. Since there is clearly a disagreement between you and User:SnowFire about whether to merge, this needs a WP:MERGE discussion. SnowFire made some WP:BOLD edits, which you are entitled to revert if you disagree ... but then both of you please follow WP:BRD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasnodark: I'm not sure why you asked BrownHairedGirl rather than me, and having this conversation here. I would have been happy to explain my edits. Since BHG has apparently joined in and reverted me as well, I suppose we'll have this discussion here, although I'm puzzled as to why - my edits were absolutely explained (and also mentioned on Talk:Charles Stross in advance).
I'm not 100% sure, but you DID look at the resulting series pages, correct? There was no removal of content. None. Even bad content about irrelevant stuff. It was solely a merger. Before, someone going to The Apocalypse Codex or whatever would see the content on that page, and with my change they see the exact same content on the series page at The_Laundry_Files#The_Apocalypse_Codex. And furthermore, this could be a temporary merger at that, if you're committed enough to expand some of these articles - there would be no problem with re-creating and re-spinning off these articles once there's any content to be had there; see for example Singularity Sky. Of course, it's actually been me who has been doing that expansion and improving the content (see [2] or [3] or [4] ).
I'm somewhat insulted because merging these articles is saving them from a potential AFD or redirect-and-no-merge, like what happened to various articles on The Merchant Princes, not by me. Additionally, many reviews and awards have been for the series-as-a-whole, e.g. The Merchant Princes, so they count as coverage and notability for all the books.
I plan on re-redirecting, but will hold off a bit in case there's strenuous objection - although I would argue that the only good grounds for objection are "I'm going to expand all of these articles so much that they can all stand on their own right now." And even then, you can do the expansion on the series page first, then spin it off once it's large enough. SnowFire (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, specifically for BrownHairedGirl. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the automatic edit summary for redirects was preferred. "Back in the day" I would say "merging content" or whatever, but the automatic edit summary on a redirect is very clear and obvious. And now apparently I'm being punished for using it. Is there some standard that goes against that edit summary that I don't know about? Serious question, since you apparently considered it a problem above. (I will admit that in retrospect I missed adding {{R from merge}} on some of those redirects, but that shouldn't be that bad...?! That's minor housekeeping...) SnowFire (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: you have not in any way been "punished". All that has happened is that you have been reverted, which is simply the first stage of the WP:BRD cycle.
The three edits which I did revert [5], [6], [7] offered no explanation in the edit summary of why the page had been redirected. Neither the edit summaries nor the substance of the edits conform to WP:MERGETEXT. And no, I didn't burrow around your contribs looking for an explanation somewhere else -- I assume that there is a discussion or written explanation of the merge, that the editsummary will link to it.
And as you will have seen above, the 4th edit I reviewed 'did explain itself, so I didn't revert it.
Yes, it would have been better if Yasnodark had approached SnowFire directly. And maybe I should have declined to do anything other than advise Yasnodeak to do that.
So maybe we have all screwed up a bit, but this is all no big deal. I have no interest in the substantive merits of these merges. I was just helping out an editor concerned at some unexplained actions, and I hope that you two can both sort this out between you.
You can continue to use this talk page if you want to, but it would be better to move the discussion to an article talkpage, or to a project page, so that the discussion can be seen by any other editors interested in the topic. Good luck resolving it, and best wishes to both of you --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to move this discussion elsewhere - where it should have been to start.
"Punish" was perhaps the wrong word, sure, but we got dragged into spending time on this discussion that is immensely frustrating and the kind of thing that causes editor burnout - it feels like being punished for improving (not deleting!) and adding content. Thank you for the link to MERGETEXT though, I was under the impression that the AES was preferred for merges, as it doesn't cover up what happened. That said, this was ultimately a minor error in form, and I would recommend not reverting such redirects in the future unless you actually do want to dig into the merits of them, even if it is just to look at the target page to verify a merge happened rather than deletion - this shouldn't happen solely because someone forgot or didn't use a merge summary. (And for my part, I'll definitely stick to the letter of WP:MERGETEXT myself so that digging won't be required.) SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Sorry, SnowFire, but a major edit like that without explanation is the sort of thing that I would usually revert on sight, with my own edit summary along the lines of a more verbose "rv unexplanined". Then discuss later. Big changes need explanation, and a merge is a big change. Edit summaries take only a few seconds to type, and they are the best way of ensuring that other editors can readily understand what you have done and why.
I presume from your classification of Tommy Farr that you believe WP does not allow Welsh, Scottish, etc, as a nationality or nominal cultural heritage. As a matter of interest, do we also call all natives of northern Ireland British? We Welsh have no problem, because we were Britons long before the Romans, Danes and English arrived! Bjenks (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to leave this note in a single message along with a notice that an arbitration case has been requested because of your use of admin tools to engage in edit-warring to overturn an XFD case. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case for the latter. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BHG. Nice to be interacting with you again, though sorry that I am talking and alternative position. Anyway, on indenting. You "fixed" my indenting. [8]
However, I have over the years been told, sometimes strongly, that :::* indenting is wrong, bad, awful, atrocious etc. See the most recent discussion at User_talk:Redrose64#List_markup. Apparently, I gather, the nice visual markup we see does not work for screenreaders. Does it make sense to you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SmokeyJoe, nice to talk to you again. Hope you be keeping well.
And no prob about disagreeing. That's how it goes :)
As to the indents, I try to stick to the multiple **** format ... but the problem is that once someone has used :::* indenting, attempts to use the *** format in subsequent comments breaks the display. Since that thread had already gone over to :::*, your use of **** produced ugly effects. That's why I changed it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note
Hey it occurs to me that you're using the word "aggressive" frequently and you just disclosed how this word is related to your personal life, which is very regrettable to begin with. Please note however that your writing style in general may be taken as aggressive too, by certain editors, in the sense that your mere writing style may strengthen them to disagree with you even while they know they're actually wrong. A more moderate tone of voice may at times be more productive. (Fair enough with me if you immediately remove this note from your talk page.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that observation, Marcocapelle. It was well-intended, so I certainly won't remove it. And I will think about it. Would any of my friendly talkpage stalkers like to comment on Marco's observation? I'd be genuinely intersted in feedback.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see your writing style as aggressive, and I do agree with you that Nyttend's seems to be. Especially, threats of actions to be taken (and especially when stated by an admin) would be difficult not to take as aggressive. I have interacted with Nyttend before, though not for some time now, and it has nearly always been rather unpleasant. Omnedon (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpbT16:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl and categories arbitration case request declined
Hello BrownHairedGirl, I just saw this ticket at OTRS. The customer claiming to be a relative of Thomas Thornley believes that the spelling of the surname should be Thornely not Thornley so can you please investigate a little bit. Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 12:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to divert a non-WP issue, but my initial checks reveal that your correspondent is right: Thornely was consistently used by multiple reports in The Times newspaper, and in Hansard. Together, I think that those two give a definitive answer. The name used is an error in an unreliable source, viz. Rayment, and when I created the article I should have gone with the spelling used in the scholarly FWS Craig source I cited. I will try later today to collect the refs and fix the article. In the meantime, please would you be kind enough to thank the relative for pointing out the error, and to pass on my apologies for the mistake? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I also notice diffrent sources show diffrent spellings but the image published by NPG cleared my confusion. Sure I will thank the relative for pointing out the error, and will pass your apologies also if you are busy do you want me to move the article without leaving a redirect and fix the pages which link to Thomas Thornley? Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BrownHairedGirl, can you put back this article please for me? It was already created some years ago, but it didn't meet the rules, criterias of Wikipedia regarding kickboxing. Since then, this guy is top 10 in the world at lightweight. #6 actually, highly ranked. http://liverkick.com/index.php/rankings Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco s (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they've:
fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), WKA (through 2000)), been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source, or
been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. I'm responding here to the comment you left at WP:CfD, because discussion appears to be straying from the focus of that board. You made a request that I should "Please repopulate the category so that it can be nominated at CFD and discussed", which has me a little confused. I am unfamiliar with how a Wikipedia editor would "repopulate" a category. I hope you did not mean that I should re-insert inappropriate categories into articles where I removed them, which would be against Wikipedia policy. As I explained at CfD, I had removed the category from a few articles into which they had been improperly inserted. For example, this removal, from a stub article which not only fails to mention anything associated with the category, but the article is completely unsourced as well. (Categories must be verifiable, non-controversial and should be supported in the body of the article.) On some other articles, I renamed categories to match what was conveyed in the article body. These renames and removals have indeed resulted in a lightly populated (if not empty) category, but I do not see why that would be an obstacle to the renaming or deletion of categories. I haven't removed any categories which were either supported in the body of the article or indicated as applicable by the sources cited in the article. So I guess I'm asking for a clearer explanation of what it is you are requesting of me. (And FYI: I do intend to initiate a deletion discussion for the category.) Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Struck intent to propose deletion. Will leave that to others. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You are entitled to that view, and I'm sure you can make a well-reasoned case for it.
But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it. It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles, but when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus.
That's why I and @Marcocapelle both asked you to repopulate. Please do so, or I will simply go through your contribs list and rollback the relevant edits ... and that may also rollback other changes you made to the same articles.
This all seems so Kafkaesque. I think I see where the problem is here:
...when your starting point is that you think that the whole category should not exist, that removal amounts to backdoor deletion without consensus.
That isn't my starting point, that was my conclusion. If I thought the whole category should not exist, I would have simply emptied it in under 10 minutes, almost a year ago. Instead, I recently spent 4.5 hours carefully reviewing the last few remaining articles and their sources to determine if the remaining categories were properly added or not. My conclusion that the category was either redundant to existing cats, or applied in a "nonsensical" way, came after I had checked those articles. I've found and corrected hundreds of articles mis-tagged with that specific category for almost a year (you wouldn't be expected to know this - see June 2016, July 2016, etc.). I've also engaged in discussions with some of the editors adding the cat (including the creator of the category), so this isn't some impromptu ploy or gaming to have a category deleted because it is empty. My edits really have been made in a good faith manner.
But what you are not entitled to do us to simply empty it and then say "let's delete that empty" category ... because that way, other editors do not know what was in it.
If your concern is really that other editors "know what was in it", it seems the best solution would be for me to provide a comprehensive list of all of the articles along with my deletion request. I can do that. Neatly formatted, alphabetized and Wiki-linked in a collapsed list format. That way, reviewing editors will be fully informed on the history of the use of the category (not just the most recently removed), while we avoid re-mis-categorizing articles with a non-applicable category. Alternatively, if you are concerned that nominating a category for deletion after the removal of inappropriately tagged articles is somehow a "backdoor deletion without consensus", then I'll strike my intent to propose the deletion of the category now. Someone else can get around to proposing it and doing it if the community decides it is necessary.
On a side note, the last thing I want to do is get in a squabble with one of the more even-tempered and sensible admins we have. (Yeah, I remember you from a looong time ago.) If neither of my above proposals work for you, and you are sticking with the "roll back your edits or I will do it for you" position, could I trouble you to clarify just how much re-population you want (the past 2 days; 3 months; 6 months; 1 year or more)? And when you say "It's fine to remove a few miscategorised articles...", could you please clarify how many and how frequently would be acceptable to you, because after I've "re-populated" the category with problematic articles, I intend to improve those articles (read: re-remove the policy-violating cats). I just don't want to ruffle any feathers or trip over any red tape in the process. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle: Thank you for starting the CfD, which I've since joined. I've added a table of previously categorized articles that have been removed or renamed by editors (not just by me - [9], [10], etc.), and I've joined you as a co-nominator of the proposed deletion so that I could give actual policy-based reasons for the nomination, if that is okay.
BrownHairedGirl: I'd like to apologize to you for being so incredulous (above) that you would ask me to "repopulate" a problematic category with some articles totally lacking in the required reliable sources. I just read for the first time at WP:Categorization:
"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.
So I see now there was some precedence for your request. I still would have balked at your request, choosing instead to abide by Policy (WP:V) over editing Guideline (WP:CAT), but I certainly wouldn't have come off so gobsmacked. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Women's wheelchair basketball players
I have a problem with the moving of Category:xxxx female wheelchair basketball players to Category:xxxx women's wheelchair basketball players. Obviously, the two are not the same thing. Since the women notable enough to have articles invariably play in mixed competitions as well, you have to add them all to Category:xxxx wheelchair basketball players. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, I moved only those categories which I had just created, per WP:C2E. Since the parent categs are named "FooCountry women's basketball players", I see no need to depart from that naming convention.
There is no need to place the articles also in the ungendered parent category. The fact that a woman plays is eligible to play in women's basketball obviously does not preclude her from playing in mixed competitions, just as men and women tennis players can play together in mixed doubles, but are categorised by gender. Please also note that I have cross-linked between two sets of gendered categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the two are not the same thing. One refers to men who play wheelchair basketball, the other to people who play men's wheelchair basketball. Except at the international level, there are only mixed (eg NWBL) and women's (eg WNWBL) competitions. There is no men's competition except at the international level. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, OK, I have restored the categories. Please let them stand while we discuss. (Sorry for he slight delay while I finished another task).
I really think you are making far too big an issue of the linguistic distinction. I take your point about the predominance of mixed competitions, but it is those who play at international level who are most likely to be notable per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBIO. The majority (probably the overwhelming majority) of the articles in the categories are of international-level players.
And in any case, I think that it is a semantic distinction with little practical difference. Whichever label we put on it, it's exactly the same set of people .. so why not just stick with the existing naming convention? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case if notability could only be garnered from wheelchair basketball. Take, for example, Eric Boulter. His notability is as a swimmer. So he has only played NWBL, ie only mixed basketball. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Hawkeye7, and he's probably not the only one like that. But so what? He's a wheelchair basketball player, eligible to play in men-only games ... but plays in men+women's games. You are reading into the title an exclusivity of meaning which isn't there. The title is "men's wheelchair basketball players", not "men-only wheelchair basketball players". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. He's eligible to play octopush too but... We can define the categories to mean whatever we want; it's just that they lose usefulness if we don't understand them. But I'll leave it up to you. You're the one with the brown hair. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Not sure if you are aware of this, but another move discussion has been opened at Talk:Trump over whether Trump should redirect to Donald Trump. Considering the rather thorough move discussion that was closed just months ago, a moratorium should be put in place.--Nevé–selbert01:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Madam, I saw on Wikipedia Murudeshwara page that you had earlier participated in a discussion about my hometown Murdeshwar. I request you to revisit the page and provide your expert comments about my new posting on the talk page of Murdeshwar. I am new to Wikipedia and do not know how to contact members for getting help. It is my earnest request to all experienced members of Wikipedia to help me in getting back the correct spelling of my home town. In my humble opinion, a mistake made by the first author should not be allowed to carry forward. Please take some time out of your busy schedule and help us.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JbhTalk 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
