User talk:BrownHairedGirl

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

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
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[edit]

Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie (c. 1797).jpg

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![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

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").

You're Invited![edit]

{{WPW Referral}}

Merry Christmas and happy new year[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


Talk back[edit]

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

Walled garden[edit]

Please read my comment about the walled garden, an image I took literally, explaining that it has a bell to enter: an article's talk. Please cite "clique" or reword it, - to may observation there are many editors active around Bach's music who work independently. I see no need to place the whole set of articles (hundreds of them) under restrictions. Who would monitor that? If Francis would adhere to simple 1RR, as I'd expect from any editor, all would be fine. I could give you more examples of the past where that was missing but don't want to bloat ANI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Gerda Arendt, but I am not going to change my comment.
My experience of classical music articles in general is that they are zealously guarded by a set of cliques, i.e. groups of editors who resent incomers and try to squeeze out those who don't conform to their existing consensus. That's not how en.wp is supposed to work.
I did of course read your defence of the walled garden before commenting on it. The notion that an articles or set of articles has a bell to enter is wholly contrary to the general principle of en.wp as the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The only point of such a bell at the gate in a wall is so that other editors can seek permission to enter, and that this permission can be refused. From whom are they seeking permission, other than a clique who claim WP:OWNership?
As to who would patrol 1RR, the answer is simply the community, as applies whenever 1RR is imposed on any topic. That's how it is monitored in all the contentious areas where arbcom has imposed 1RR on a topic.
If you would expect any editor to uphold 1RR, then why do you seek to apply it to only one editor in this case? If all the other editors uphold it anyway, then a 1RR rule would not restrict them in any way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested where you met that very general clique behaviour, because I work in classical music since 2009 and have not met it. I know only one editor who moves a featured article without a move request and when reverted still doesn't seek the consensus of the community but creates 25k bytes of talk page discussion, which is not how I want to spend my volonteered time. - I am on voluntary 1RR myself, just for politeness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
So, if you are on voluntary 1RR, what would be the problem with compulsory 1RR? Why exactly do you oppose it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
English is not my first language. I wonder why you understood my "comment" as an "oppose". If I oppose something it's thinking of editors of classical music as a clique, - maybe I don't understand that word either. In German, it has negative connotations which are not justified for the editors of classical music with whom I work well. Back to my question above which you didn't answer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying harder. You say: "My experience of classical music articles in general is that they are zealously guarded by a set of cliques, i.e. groups of editors who resent incomers and try to squeeze out those who don't conform to their existing consensus." You speak of experience, please give one example, because I have no idea what makes you think so. - If you catch me resenting an "incomer", ever, please tell me and I will go and try to amend the situation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My two reverts: the first delinking a link to a redirect to an article that was linked before. The second: restoring to bold a redirect (didn't even see the link was back). Call that bad behaviour if you have to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, c'mon Gerda Arendt. You have been editing long enough to know to use "show changes" to check the effect of an edit. If you are reverting, it's important to check what you are reverting.
In that case, you didn't spot all the effects of your edit, and I'm sure it was a good faith mistake ... but if you want other editors held to the 1RR standard, why not you too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I am rather long on Wikipedia, and had only one 3RR edit war on my talk. I never said I don't want to be held to 1RR, although I prefer to do things voluntarily, - as I'd hope from others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, everyone would prefer to do 1RR voluntarily. All I am saying is that if it is going to be imposed, it should be imposed on everyone editing those articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
peace bell
Would you kindly show me one instance of edit-warring where Francis is not involved? (And don't tell me removing a duplicate link, even twice, is edit warring, - it's just applying the MoS). - My new year's greeting was: The peace bell by Yunshui: let's make 2016 the year of the reader and of peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Re. "one instance of edit-warring where Francis is not involved" – sure: Gerda edit-warring with Dgljr5121973 (less than 30 minutes between the two reverts) 23:14, 23 April 2016 - 23:42, 23 April 2016
Context: Dgljr5121973 is the gardener of the "remote passions" walled garden I alluded to at ANI. This is what happens when two such gardeners meet on a piece of land they want to build their own wall around: edit war. IMVHO it is the walled garden concept that has to go from the Bach sacred music field, and all other solutions offered thus far will, as far as I can assess the situation, prove to be ineffective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
When I look at the Weimarer Passion history, I see me gardening, you (Francis) gardening, others gardening, without a wall. I think that is the best solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hope BrownHairedGirl doesn't mind us trying to sort out some issues on her talk page, the dialogue may be refreshing.

Of the three "walled garden" gardeners (Gerda, Mathsci, Dgljr) Dgljr is the least problematic (Dgljr's cursory approach to WP:V is problematic, but that's not the topic here). Let's compare:

Of these Gerda knew me best: not recognising me for what I do is not problematic for me as such, but it gave a sad spectacle at ANI. Gardening without walls (like I do) is imho better for the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We seem to agree more than you may realize, - I said "without a wall" just above. Moving content from a cantata was no "huge problem" (when there's an explanation and/or link to the missing context), - moving the whole article without discussion was. I suggest to continue on articles' talk instead of here, as already begun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I try to avoid talking about behavior on article talk pages. Gerda going defensive in her walled gardens is a behavioral issue. WP:OWN was mentioned above by BHG, before I entered the conversation. All of it was dismissed by Gerda, with statements that on closer inspection were a bit flawed. What I tried to say with my examples above: Gerda, please, stop building walls around gardens, with you deciding who may enter. Your edit war with Dgljr (diffs above) sprang from Dgljr forcing an entry into one of your walled gardens; my editing Weimarer Passion (-8,560, see above) was not problematic while it was not your walled garden to begin with. My moving the BWV 4 article to an article title more in line with applicable policy would never have been problematic if you hadn't gone to defensive with forumshopping/canvassing and whatnot. Gerda, are you prepared to behave on Bach's church cantata articles less as if they are a garden where you are responsible for the walls? I assume that is a yes, while you say that "without a wall" is what you prefer. If that's something learned through the ANI episode I'm more than fine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Update on "My moving the BWV 4 article to an article title more in line with applicable policy would never have been problematic if you hadn't gone to defensive with forumshopping/canvassing and whatnot": the behaviour continues, " ... just stop arguing, better go outside ..." is the hardly veiled recommendation given on the user talk page of someone who had commented for the first time on the article's talk page a few hours earlier, disagreeing with Gerda on the article title. @Gerda Arendt: please remember what you said regarding "without a wall". Your behaviour shows otherwise.
Further, "...what we - the editors of classical music - then did was: follow the NBA..." sounds kind of arrogant in my ears: speak for yourself will you. Afaik Wikipedia article titles rather follow BWV than NBA. "we - the editors of classical music" is of course also all wrong from the walled garden perspective. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Cleaning up one of Gerda's walled gardens (see elaborate discussion here, especially near the end "I, however, created an article with a short name (Ferruccio Busoni works) ..." ... a thinly veiled attempt to defend "her" version of the redirect with an ownership logic): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
A birthday today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
True, I still forgot to mention the kafkaesque walled garden. Defending a canvass operation by indicating you were canvassing to a friend ([11]) makes it only worse from the viewpoint of the WP:CANVASS guidance (later I learnt "friend" was probably rather used ironically in the context, [12], but that doesn't diminish the inopportune defense of the canvass operation). @Gerda Arendt: please familiarize yourself with the WP:CANVASS guidance, and live up to it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Francis (apologies to you, BrownHairedGirl, for abusing your talk), you quote a discussion but didn't quote what seems most important to me: If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith ..., just imagine ..., right, Bgwhite? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 ? Are you accusing me of not assuming good faith in any way? Maybe look at it this way: I wouldn't take the time, extensively and repeatedly, to explain to you what goes wrong, rephrasing policy, providing links to it, etc... if I weren't assuming good faith. Whatever I write on talk pages, I always think: we'll collaborate again on this project, so take the time to explain things properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The concept of a walled garden is not assuming good faith, - I introduced it with irony, sorry, my mistake. I accuse nobody (show me where I accused someone, and will think about it and probably apologize), - to think I'm accusing you is also not assuming good faith. Things go wrong, yes, I agree, but could we focus on the things that went wrong? Please explain why you'd think that the article Ferruccion Busoni works (as it was) was no service to readers and had to go, or be changed? Why would you ever want to link with a full lengthy title such as "List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni", - all these many characters, many times? Those are the things I don't understand. What you wrote above about my assumed irony amused me. BrownHairedGirl, would you be willing to (informally) mediate? I don't feel understood, and I am sure, Francis, I might understand you better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gerda Arendt I think you pinged the wrong person as the quote is from B's talk page. My mom has always called me just B, but most people use "BG" along with some choice swear words. Interestingly, my wife affectionally calls me her Spanish: puta. Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I pinged you because our friendship was a topic above, "later I learnt "friend" was probably rather used ironically in the context", - no it wasn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


For hopefully better understanding, I start by explaining my point of view, example Busoni. When I realized that Busoni's 150 anniversary of birth came up, I thought about how to celebrate it and discussed that with the main editor of the biography, Smerus. I gave Busoni a navbox, {{Ferruccio Busoni}}. I looked at the related lists, including compositions and adaptions. I moved them to standard titles and cleaned up after the moves. I found the lists long, loaded with details, full of duplicate links, other links missing. I thought that an interface of selected works (works with an article, or works mentioned in the biography) would be a good idea, discussed with Smerus again, and created it. - Nobody disagreed, only you, Francis. Please let me understand. - I think that even when improved in quality, the long lists are not good for the average reader. What do you (all) think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

...which illustrates some behavioral issues...
  • The content issue (Busoni works pages and redirects) is still discussed elsewhere. That discussion is still open. It is not a good idea to set up a concurrent forum (on that same content issue) on a user talk page: it may be perceived as forumshopping, especially when, once again, it is a one-sided (and hence tendentious) summary of what is already being discussed elsewhere.
  • AFAICS the topic in this user talk page thread is a behavioral one: WP:OWNerish conduct w.r.t. walled gardens, for which I supplied more examples above. Please don't try to change the subject, it only further underlines what should rather be avoided (trying to win a content dispute by inviting selected "friends" on concurrent user talk page discussions - which should better be avoided per WP:CANVASS). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ferruccio Busoni is my last word here. Thanks for your patience, BrownHairedGirl! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Both of these are stale diffs as I don't want to draw discussions here when they are still active elsewhere. On the whole I see little progress w.r.t. the walled garden issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership-related doublespeak[edit]


  • "it's not "my" template" – seems to acknowledge the guidance at WP:OWN, however:
  • "I inherited it" – inheriting something is claiming current ownership
  • "leave it alone" – telling others to leave it alone is ownership (and walled garden) logic.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That diff is very much WP:OWNership speak. Gerda Arendt, we have a problem here. I do hope that you will revise your approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if my English is not good enough. When I put something in quotation marks, it means a degree of irony or distance. I had almost no time when I wrote that. I apologize if I expressed inadequately that I feel that a template that has been (more or less) constant for years, and is thus something the readers got used to, should not be changed without a good reason. I also believe it should not be changed without consultation with project classical music. To install a template instead of the traditional one, a new template which is at TfD, is no good reason, imho. I would not mind to have it in addition. Please note that I said "best leave it alone", not "leave it alone", meaning that at least I have more than enough to do without another problem zone created by undiscussed changes to a multitude of articles, or "if it ain't broken don't fix it". Francis: please restore {{Bach cantatas}} to the cantatas where you removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Re. "install a template instead of the traditional one" (which is a diff of the article O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210): we know you don't want to relinquish ownership of that article to the editing community. That was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Bach's secular cantatas: navbox and category (your words regarding the BWV 210 article "... one for which I feel responsible", which is just a nicer way of saying you claim ownership of the article, see my reply in that discussion)
So the question here is, regarding the diff that is experienced as problematic in the ownership speak area: slip of the tongue or inadvertently showing true colors? Since you didn't ammend nor remove that edit, the problem persists. My perception of the problem has changed through your response above. When you have time enough, you use the nicer phrases (articles "for which" you feel "responsible" and the like), when under time pressure (as you admit above), the true colors appear ("I inherited" the template, "... leave it alone ..."). Previously I thought the problem was difficulty with the English language (your "English" being "not good enough", and similar excuses for not grasping the essence of guidance such as WP:OWN). Above you admit you "expressed" yourself "inadequately" at the template talk page. Yet you don't update your wording there to more adequate expressions. Starts to look more and more like WP:GAMING to me: you know and understand what is wrong, yet you choose to refuse, deliberately, to "revise your approach". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I love Bach's music, and I have a talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed[15]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I'm new to this wiki and I wanna get to pages that have grammar / spelling mistakes in them, but how do find them easily?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren4Turbo (talkcontribs) 21:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi. On articles like Tyler Mislawchuk, you've added the country/gender category, but left the main gender category on the article. Is there a reason for this? There's probably a few hundred articles like this now. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, well-spotted. At this point, there may even be a few thousand like that. This is a transient issue, because I have found that it's the most efficient way to structure my workflow.
For example, if an article on a man is currently in Category:Norwegian sprinters, it may also have been in Category:Male sprinters and in Category:Norwegian male athletes/Category:Norwegian sportsmen. Moving it solely from Category:Norwegian sprinters to Category:Norwegian sprinters leaves it in those now superfluous categories.
My reason for doing it this way is that I have found that it is way fastest to use cat-a-lot to split a category, and then use AWB afterwards to tidy up the now redundant categories. (AWB can easily identify the redundancies, but it's a very clumsy way of deciding which gender attribute to apply).
I have done AWB-cleanup this for the Americans, and as I complete the other nationalities I will do it for them. I hope that later today, I can do those AWB runs for the Polish, Norwegian, British, English and German sets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you! - rugby cats[edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Hi BrownHairedGirl, while watching the rio olympic women's rugby 7s games (aren't we all:))), had a look at some of the team member wikipages. i see that women rugby union players (and women 7s players) are in female cats ie.Ellia Green , is this appropriate? ... just wondering.

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Coolabahapple , I took a peek at Ellia Green. Looks good to me. What did you think might be the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
sorry about that, i'm not concerned about the article per se, just that i noticed that she and other women rugby players are categorised as female rugby players. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying that, Coolabahapple.
Sadly "female" seems to be the convention in sports categs. I think it's wrong, because most of the sports use "women"; a few use "ladies", but AFAIK none use "female".
However, the corollary of "men fooers" seems to stick in some throats, so I reckon it will take an RFC to change it from male/female to men/women. Meantime, I have created hundreds of male/female sports categs :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
ok, thanks for that. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Mammals CFD closure[edit]

Hi BHG, please could you check the closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_23#Category:Mammals_of_Algeria as one of the categories hasn't been deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DexDor, for spotting that and for notifying me.
I checked back on my edits at closing time, and I see that I clumsily omitted the last of 5 categories from my entry at CFD/W[16]. I how now listed the straggler (Category:Mammals of Western Sahara) at CFD/W[17]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I didn't notice the conflict. Joe Roe (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's OK, Joe Roe.
All now fixed! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with info on irena szewinska[edit]

Hello I was looking at irena szewinskas wiki page and saw that you had edited the page. She is my great aunt and I've been trying to contact her for years, i know it's a long shot but I wanted to see if you had any information on her? Or a way that I can come in contact with her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7533:6600:444A:E132:3EFD:317A (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


I am a nephew of Eleanor Barton. Are you aware of the book Feminism and the Politics of the Working woman by Gill Scott? I think that is the title and Jerome Caminada Twenty-five years etc the 1895 . Edition. Regards David Stockton — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot Request for CfD[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl, a discussion regarding a new bot task related to WP:CFD is open at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 2. I thought you may have some insight that could help the discussion. If you are interested, please stop by and comment. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Implied single-sex categories not named as such[edit]

Are all potential members of Category:Senegalese hammer throwers going to be female? Similarly, are all potential members of Category:Nigerien middle-distance runners and Category:Cook Island middle-distance runners going to be male? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, why were those three categories placed inside themselves? Do I need to check your other category creations? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64. Good catch.
I have fixed those three you listed above, for which I had mistakenly used my male-category templates in ungendered categories. As you may have noticed, I have created many hundreds of such categories over the last two weeks, and I can't guarantee that it is all error-free -- tho I am annoyed with myself that as many as three errors had gone undetected. I have done quite a lot of self-checking, but another eye to look ever it all would be very welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories[edit]

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Change to WP:DATERANGE[edit]

Hi; I just thought you might be interested in the outcome of this discussion, where it was decided to change WP:DATERANGE to ####–#### as the default, rather than the old ####–##. I thought you might be interested because I remember we had discussed this before, I think in relations to the UK MP by parliament (year range) categories and other parliamentarian by date range categories. I suppose they could be justifiably changed back now. But whew!—what a lot of work for small changes. Talk about housekeeping!

Or, we could decide to keep the ####–## format as is as an extension of the exception in DATERANGE where it suggests that the ####–## style can be used "in infoboxes and tables where space is at a premium." I'm not sure if we would say that space is at a premium in categories—I could see both sides of that debate—but maybe we should have category-focussed discussion on how to go forward with this issue? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup, Good Ol’factory ... but oh, lordy.
Do you know the old Scottish prayer:

From ghoulies and ghosties
And long-leggedy beasties
And things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!

To that list, I would add ping-ponging style guides. I wasn't very keen on the change to ####–##, but accepted the consensus and ran with it ... and now, when it has been widely implemented, it is deprecated. I agree with most of the arguments for the change, but, as you rightly say, what a lot of work for small changes.
Personally, I wouldn't mind much either way whether categories are changed to fit the new convention. But you are probably right that the UK MP by parliament categs are a critical test-case, and we need a categ-focused discussion. I suggest an early RFC, to achieve the broadest consensus before categories start being nominated piecemeal. What do you think?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, probably a good idea to have some sort of RFC from a category perspective to see where we want to come down. Either way, there will be work to do, because truth be told, there are a bunch of categories that still use the ####–#### format and were never changed over – I'm thinking of the aircraft by decade ones. (I can see the benefit of having condensed names in categories, but I would probably be in favour of just following the general guideline rather than instituting categories as an exception. Otherwise we will get into all sorts of situations where an article title uses the "full" date range and a corresponding category with the same name could use the "condensed" date range. Anyway, I always find more satisfaction in implementing a guideline than in deciding what it should be, so I'm very open to what others think on the matter.) Unfortunately, I'm not going to have much WP time in the next few days, starting tomorrow, otherwise I might get this ball rolling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, howsabout I start the RFC? I'm happy to wait for you to do it if you prefer, but I think there's a case for a quick start.
I think it's fairly simple question. Basically 3 options: require/forbid/permit, and any possible exceptions. How does that sound?
I agree with your point about the merits of following article-space logic. I'm not sure how often that the situation would arise of YYYY-YYYY category having an eponymous article, but it is bound to arise sometimes, and a clash of naming policies would be a real energy-sink for everyone involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
It's OK with me if you start the RFC; those options sound good. I'll have time to pop in and comment at some stage. I noticed a category with a date span having an eponymous article at WP:CFDS: Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–14) vs. War in Afghanistan (2001–2014). It was this nomination that got me thinking about the issue. There are also a few "history of" categories that I know of with the same issue, and also a few categories for defunct states/territories. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dharambir Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprinter (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) 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Were you still planning on filing action against Johnpacklambert? Because, in recent days, he's taken to mass-nominating beauty pageant winners and low-level football players, seemingly out of a personal belief that they don't belong rather than actually looking to see if they fail GNG or not. pbp 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi pbp
I wasn't going to follow through on that. JPL's conduct at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio and at the subsequent deletion review was utterly disgraceful. He made plentiful personal attacks, and insisted that any criticism of the independence of his sources was an "attack" both on him personally and on the institutions.
In my view, that despicable conduct deserved some serious sanctions, but sadly, a significant proportion of contributors at both the AFD and the delrev decided to endorse (or at least condone) JPL's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach.
Since the community seems disinclined to even criticise JPL's highly abusive POV-pushing, I see no point in wasting any of my energy on further action. Sorry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sad that the community is endorsing JPL's version of things :-( pbp 19:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Alekksandr (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Peers and MPs who died in World War I[edit]

Hi BHG. Are you still active on peerages and MPs? If so, could I get your advice on a plan I have to create a list of MPs and Peers who died in World War I. The topic is covered to some extent at Parliamentary War Memorial (which covers both World Wars). The existing lists of people who died in WWI (and sometimes in WWII) I gathered at Category:Lists of people killed in World War I. Some lists cover all those who died on military service. Other lists do both World Wars, others split the lists between the World Wars. WWII has more civilian deaths, so sometimes there is justification for treating that differently. A draft is here (in my userspace, jumbled among other things best ignored) for WWI only (and not including the others on the memorial - they should be included, but I was concentrating on those with articles first - all the MPs have articles, though four of the peers seem to have died too young to warrant an article, though maybe stubs on their military service might be possible, and Vernon and Conyngham were relatively old). What approach do you think is best? I also found a number of photos that would be suitable. Would like to get a photo of the heraldic memorial shields in the Commons chamber, but that might be difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth
Long time no talk. Hope you are well.
I still do a bit on MPs, now mostly the 18th- and 19th-century ones.
I am a big fan of sortable lists. They seem to me to be much more than the sum of their parts, allowing readers to arrange the data in whatever way interests them. In this case, columns such as name, age/dob/dod, party, constituency, length of parliamentary service, military service (regiment/ship/etc), military rank, would make a very interesting set, esp if photos bring it all to life. The only downside with that is that the peers would be an odd fit ... but maybe the peers would be better as a separate list, possibly with a longer timespan?
Anyway, that's just my idea, and it may not be the path that works for you. Hope it helps somehow, even if only as ideas to discard!
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I am well thanks, hope you are well too. The thing that I sometimes struggle with is what to do with lists where you can put a lot of things in. How do you avoid having too many columns? I would add the memorials and cemeteries where they are commemorated/buried to that list, partly because I have an interest in that, and partly because it ties in with common connection (that they all died in World War I). The pdf lists provided by give place of death, but I'm not sure about that. I might put some things in a 'notes' column, or use footnotes. What do you think about articles for some of those peers? I'll do a WWII list tonight, and maybe some of the others (sons of MPs, sons of peers, and officers of the house and sons of officers of the house, though the latter two categories are unlikely to yield much). Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I managed to get side-tracked by listing the bereaved MPs and peers from WWI. I assume this is only those who were actually MPs or former-MPs-and-now-peers at the time of their bereavement. The list of sons of peers is on another memorial (in the House of Lords). This, incidentally, explains why some of the post-war debates about commemoration were so charged and emotional - many of the MPs had a personal stake in it themselves. The bereaved MPs is a list of 90+ that is surprisingly hard to connect up to articles. There is at least one mistake in the source I am using. That says Rowland Noel Barran was the eldest son of Sir John Barran, Bart., MP for Leeds North 1902-1918, but John Barran was MP somewhere else and the CWGC record for Rowland Barran says he was the son of Rowland Barran who was indeed MP for Leeds North. A surprising number of the MP articles fail to mention their bereavement in the war. I can understand that for a stub like Charles Carew, but James Campbell, 1st Baron Glenavy was Lord Chancellor of Ireland, you would have thought that the death of his son in the war would have been mentioned somewhere? The CWGC record of the person that the Parliamentary Memorial source says his is son is here (P. S. Campbell, Philip Sidney according to the parliamentary source). Maybe the Irish connection made it impolitic? Was also surprised to find that there are still MPs with no articles... James Boyton is not yet written. John Bethall could redirect to either John Bethell, 1st Baron Bethell or John P. Bethell, but what links here gives two other (article-less) John Bethells who want to claim the link as well. If I remember my disambiguation lessons correctly, a disambiguation page would be OK here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

An update on this (the bereaved MPs are here - the list of bereaved peers will be much longer). There are some puzzles that you might be able to help with (or could you suggest a good place to ask?):

  • The article for Robert Hermon-Hodge, 1st Baron Wyfold states (with no source I can see) that "He had seven sons, three of whom died in the First World War, and one daughter." The CWGC records show two of his sons ([18], [19]) and a Hermon-Hodge from WWII ([20], maybe a grandson). What would be the best way to check this?
  • The article for John Hinds (politician) states "He married Lizzie Powell in 1893, and the couple had one daughter." No mention of a son at all. The ODNB confirms that: "in February 1916 his son, Lieutenant William Pugh Hinds, was killed at the age of eighteen while on active service in France with the London Welsh battalion.". It is interesting that Hinds has an ODNB article, but Robert Hermon-Hodge doesn't.
  • The article on Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart simply states "With his first wife he had a daughter Katharine and a son and heir, Hugh." - this is sourced to (which gets lots of things wrong). No mention that Hugh had an elder brother (Gordon Morley Hewart) killed in WWI who fell at Gallipoli.

Those last two were more examples of how some of the MP articles are silent on the sons that fell in the war. Some articles (such as D. D. Sheehan) give prominent mention to relatives killed in the war, some don't mention it at all. Either because the sources don't mention it, or because the articles are still a bit stubby. Anyway, that's more than enough. I am going to carry on working on this. May I come back for advice when things are a bit further along? Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again
I make extensive use of The Times archive for this sort of stuff. (I get access through a library). For the 1st half of the 20th century, it's pretty good on MPs/Peers generally, tho best if they are Tories.
I used to use the BNA a lot, but sadly my account has expired (see WT:BNA) and it seems that the BNA is no longer renewing them :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Will see what The Times has to say. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Broken WikiProject templates[edit]

Where do you get the names of WikiProject templates from? Do you have a list that is out of date, or do you just guess? I ask because I fixed up ten redlinks today, all of which had been added by you, and which could have been avoided. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64
I don't really like the tone of your comment and edit summaries, and hope that you will reconsider it.
I had created a batch of about 190 sub-cats of Category:Runners by nationality, and could have left it at that. But I thought that when I had created a large set it would be nice to add WikiProject banners ... and that since they were a) all similar and b) all currently blank, then I could so using an AWB job. I assumed that all the countries had WikiProject banners of the std form "WikiProject Countryname", and created a custom AWB module to create the set of banners.
The project banners are an add-on, not a critical item, so I only reviewed a few test cases, then I just saved without preview and moved on to the next item. For a non-content item like project banners, I was not prepared to triple the the time the job took by previewing them, and if preview is to be regarded as compulsory for a non-critical non-content job like that, then I simply would not have done the job at all. It would have been much much easier for me to just leave all 190 talk pages with no banners than to get snippy comments about ten glitches out of 190, i.e. a 5% failure rate.
Thank you for taking the time to identify and fix the redlinks. However, the solution you adopted was sub-optimal. Rather than fixing each individual case, it would have been much more useful for you to create redirects, so that in future anyone adding a "WikiProject Countryname" banner to those small nations and territories could do so without having to burrow around trying to find out what the relevant banner was in each case.
I have just created Template:WikiProject Saint Lucia as one such shortcut, and will now create the rest ... so that other editors who are kind enough to take the time to add WikiProject banners to pages they have created can do so without risking a caustic commentary and edit summaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, it's done. Here's a load of new template redirects and pass-throughs for the missing WikiProject banners.
Next time you find a bunch of redlinked project banners, then for those which are nor typos it will probably be more productive for you to create the redirects, or in most cases pass-throughs such as I have done with {{WikiProject Pitcairn Islands}} and {{WikiProject East Germany}}. That way any future uses of such banners won't need manual intervention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope neither of you will mind me commenting here (about banners on article talk pages, not category talk pages), as I frequently come across biography articles that lack {{WikiProject Biography}}. There used to be regular bot runs to catch those articles, but I don't think that gets done any more. There is a Wikipedia:Database reports for untagged BLPs, but not sure if that is working any more either. Would either of you be interested in helping with that. Ideally, I should learn how to run the required query myself - it can't be that hard, can it? Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That list is easy enough to generate in AWB; install the NoLimits plugin (to allow it to handle large categories); import the list of all biographies (or whichever subsection you're interested in) using "Category (recursive)"; select "convert to talk pages"; select "skip if page contains" and the name of the template; check the "pre-parse mode" option; leave it running overnight. In the morning you'll have a list of every entry in the category whose talkpage doesn't contain the template in question. It's not the most elegant or server-efficient way to run the query, but it has the advantage that it's understandable to non-coders, and you can watch it doing the checks in real-time so can spot if it's doing something wrong. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your comments.
Yes, Carcharoth is right: far too many pages lack the relevant project tags. And Iridescent is right that there is a fairly straightforward technique for doing this in AWB. However, that AWB approach still requires some poor human to sit there whacking the save button, and having tried a bit of that I find that it's probably worse than using an unattended bot, because my eyes start to glaze over after more a few hundred pages, so in practice I cease to spot any needed fixes.
This sort of job is really best done by a bot.
However, these days I have some doubts about the importance of the project banners. AFAICS, most WikiProjects are dusty halls of tumbleweed, where apart from notifications there are only a few posts per year. The exceptions such as WP:MILHIST are a rare islands of activity in the sea of abandonment. I have largely given up even notifying WikiProjects of CFD discussions, because in most cases the response rate is near-zero ... and while the banners do allow the bots to generate the automated alerts, those are largely ignored too. The whole WikiProject edifice was built for an editing community which existed in 2007, but is now much reduced in size and much less inclined to use the WikiProjects.
Which is why I was a bit cheesed off to find that having given up an hour of my time to add these marginally-useful banners, I got rebuked for the fact that some links which should have been blue turned out to be red. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I must confess that I only really add WPBiography tags to ensure that the numbers listed at the statistics page of that WikiProject give a vague approximation of the number of biographical articles (currently approaching 1.4 million - I know there are other ways of getting a rough idea). Wikidata may actually help give a better idea of that now, as well as finally answering the question of how many articles are about women and how many about men. The next thing would be to track accurately how the article count changed over time. I must also confess that I've never got round to working out how to use AWB (I suspect I would get sucked into doing lots of things I shouldn't really have time for). It is either that, or hurry up and use Mix 'n Match before there is nothing left to help out with... Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is, it's often not something that can be left to a bot. AnomieBOT will tag all the articles in given categories with a given WikiProject banner if asked, but you still manually need to go through everything it tags and clean up a shedload of false-positives; as a concrete example, as far as Wikipedia is concerned Pat Butcher is categorised under Continental philosophy.* I did it for the London articles a few years ago to get an idea of the size of the three London projects, and was losing the will to live by the end (you can still see the huge spike in talk-page contributions in my edit history when I was doing it). ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
*Fictional prostitutes‎ → Fictional sex workers → Fictional service occupations‎ → Media portrayals of the working class‎ → Working class culture‎ → Working class‎ → Marxism → Continental philosophy, if you want the category tree; you can get an equally goofy result with virtually any article you choose at random.
Surely that is not a problem in a well-defined case? Here, you would only need to examine Category:Deaths by year (and all the subcats presuming the structure hasn't been messed up, possibly omitting the seven non-date subcats) and then add the total in Category:Living people (currently 784,281). And find out which are missing the tags. Anyway, I just had a thought: is the number of articles on living people slowly increasing or not? Remember what I said about tracking changes over time (looking at the article creation dates is one way, but you have to retrospectively include those who died during the period under study, and maybe deleted BLPs as well). I think it is slowly increasing, but maybe not. Any ideas on whether the number of BLPs is plateauing, and what the 'stable' number would be? Some complicated formula involving the world's living population with a variable called 'notability'! Sweepstake on when the number of BLPs will hit one million? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It isn't as simple as that unfortunately, since people with long careers have their biographies split into multiple stand-alone articles covering various aspects of their lives, all of which qualify as biographies. Check out how many articles we have with titles beginning Early life of…, Personal life of…, Political positions of…—for a heavy-duty bio like Michael Jackson or Adolf Hitler, the biography can easily constitute 10 or more separate articles. Plus, Category:Deaths by year is a bit mixed up, since it includes things like Category:Paul Williams (architect) and Category:Death of Osama bin Laden.
Where the number of BLPs will plateau is more of a who-blinks-first (or more accurately, who gets bored and gives up first) contest between the new page patrollers versus the "every grain of sand on the beach" types who think "death was mentioned in my local paper" automatically confers notability. (BHG will be well aware of exactly who I have in mind there.) One of the less edifying sights of recent weeks has been one arbcom member mass-creating stub biographies, while another member of the committee tags them for a lack of notability as they come in. ‑ Iridescent 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Only one AfD? I'm disappointed. I do think the pendulum has swung too far towards promoting articles on women, rather than being objective. But it is difficult to know where to start. I commented on it here and here (did that all happen back in February and March, it was that long ago?). I still shake my head when looking at the article on Anita Kurmann. I guess we should take this somewhere else, as BHG might want her talk page back? :-) (PS. I am unlikely to use AWB as that involves downloading stuff - are there other options out there?) Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I refer you to your post of 20:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC) where you said "I can't guarantee that it is all error-free -- tho I am annoyed with myself that as many as three errors had gone undetected. I have done quite a lot of self-checking, but another eye to look ever it all would be very welcome."
There is a report, Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates, updated weekly on Tuesday evenings (UTC), which I always work through within a few hours, fixing up the reported problems. Often these are typos - notice that in this week's report, there are two different incorrect spellings for both Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan. I always check the most recent edits to the talk page, in case of vandalism; but this is rare. Typos and vandalism apart, on the edits where the problem banners were added, the same names seem to come up frequently (five or six names in all), so it was a surprise to me to find the name BrownHairedGirl appearing this week - not once, but ten times, which indicated a potential problem, perhaps with a script. For the "regular" group of people, the two most common causes of these redlinks are (i) that the editor used a script that has an outdated list of WikiProject banner templates; or (ii) that they simply guessed. This is why I asked which of those two it was. Using AWB is not an excuse: WP:AWB#Rules of use no. 1 is "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." When I add a WikiProject banner to a talk page, I make sure that it exists and that it recognises the parameters that I want to add with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I think you are seriously missing the point here. 3 of the redlinks were typos; many thanks for fixing those.
The rest were templates which should have existed, and which it was quite reasonable of me to assume would exist. Per WP:REDLINK, creating a redlink is not a problem if it is a page which should exist, as those ones should.
I make no apology for using AWB as I did. In other cases I would check more thoroughly (which is why I was annoyed with myself about the 3 errors in the hundreds of categories I created), but this particular task of adding the project banners was a non-critical bonus which I did not want to put too much time into. if I was required to preview every edit on that job, I simply would not have done the job, and I remain of the view that it was much better to do the job the way I did it than not to do it at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just on random perambulations, managed to find three pages without WikiProject tags: Edward Thomas John, Jocelyn Salter and Leionne Salter. There must be tons more out there... Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 20#Category:Academics from Tacoma, Washington[edit]

Was going through old CFDs checking for anything I may have missed when I came across this, particularly your rationale as well as that of Johnpacklambert. As it stands, we have an entire tree for lawyers by state intended for people who have practiced law in that state, while underneath we have numerous categories for lawyers by city intended for people who were born in that city but became lawyers just about everywhere else in the world. I attempted to point this out to the folks responsible for creating that mess and was essentially met with a "my way or the highway" type attitude. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)