User talk:BrownHairedGirl

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


click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
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]

Marywollstonecraft.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").

Not quite gender neutral alphabetisation[edit]

Hi!

I've found that a bunch of the subcategories of Category:People by nationality have rhe subcategory "Xyzan men" or "Men in Xyz" sorted on " Men" (note the space), and therefore is listed among the first subcategories, while the corresponding subcategory "Xyzan women" is sorted on "Women", and therefore is placed under W. See e. g. Category:Grenadian people, Category:Kuwaiti people, and Category:Puerto Rican people; and Category:Russian people further down in the category tree. I've also checked the history, and noted that you actually created several of these disparities, by creating the respective articles with different types of alphabetisation ([1], [2], [3], and [4]. vz. [5] and [6]).

I'm not saying that this is a major issue; but I do react somewhat to these differences. Viewing the categories, I get a slight impression of differentiating between "ordinary people" (us men), and "people belonging to 'the sex'" (you women; with the sex used as e. g. Austen did). Not that I for one moment believe this is what you intended; seemingly, you created a lot of "Xyzan women" categories around 2007, and numerous "Xyzan men" categories much later; and I guess that you simply had changed opinion about alphabetisation standards in these years. (Besides, I did note the {{User genderneutral}} user box; I hadn't seen this one, but completely agree with it.)

My reason for writing to you rather than just fixing the slight problem is that there are several competing potential ways to do this. I see in the "Xyzan people" category histories that there has been more categories with similar discrepancies, but that to-day they mostly are replaced by one of the following four situations:

  1. Alphabetisation by "Men" and "Women" (leaving the subcategories at the respective letters M and W). This, I think, is the most common way.
  2. Alphabetisation by "+Men" and "+Women" (sorting both subcategories under +). This seems not to be uncommon for European nationalities, and seems to be entirely due to edits by 71.167.157.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in 2013.
  3. Alphabetisation by "*Men" and "*Women" (sorting both subcategories under *). This also seems not to be uncommon for European nationalities, and eems to be entirely due to edits by 86.150.236.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as recent as April, 2015.
  4. Alphabetisation by " Men" and " Women". Rare.

Similar discrepancies and history patterns seem to exist in the categories of type "Xyzan men/women by occupation", and perhaps in others, as well.

It would be nice to fix similar solutions in all these cases. Do you have any recommendation? JoergenB (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about categorization by surname at Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hello again BrownHairedGirl! As you may recall, when last I visited here seeking your excellent advice, the subject was Category:Persons charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, which I think turned out satisfactorily.

Now, I wonder if you could give me a little advice about another project. This one involves categorization over at Wikimedia Commons. Are you a guru relative to that as well? If not, maybe you can give me a referral. But if so, here's the issue.... This is all ultimately for a Wikipedia project regarding audio files of music. It will be extremely useful for that Wikipedia project if music composers are categorized at Wikimedia Commons by first letter of last name. Do you see any problem so far? Categorizing by first letter of last name is okay, right? In the mean time, I have been doing stuff like this. Do you see any problem with doing so? The main reason I am coming here now is because I do not want to make a thousand bold edits at Wikimedia Commons, and then find out that it is all contrary to some policy or another. The goal of all those edits at Wikimedia Commons will be so that I can make lots of edits like this one at Wikipedia. Please let me know if you can help by addressing these convoluted questions.  :-) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess you're busy. I went ahead and created this category for the letter "A", and will do likewise for the rest of the alphabet unless someone says I'm doing it wrong. This will make it mush easier to use AWB to work on the WP:Sound/List. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationhood[edit]

You say Dalhousie returned to England. Scotland is not and never has been part of England. He returned to Britain!!!109.155.70.1 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about George Ramsay, 9th Earl of Dalhousie, BrownHairedGirl has never edited that page in its entire history. The "returned to England" was added eight years ago, by User:Andrew Gray. ‑ iridescent 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Beats me why I wrote England there (possibly because he was notionally with the 2nd Foot at the time?), but "Britain" seems safest given the lack of detail. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)