User talk:Grutness

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

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archives[edit]

10/04-01/05 02/05 03-04/05 04-05/05
05/05 06/05 07/05 07/05
08/05 09/05: 1 09/05: 2 10/05
11/05 12/05 01/06 02/06
03-04/06 05-06/06 07-08/06 09-10/06
11-12/06 01/07 02-03/07 04-05/07
06/07 07-08/07 09-10/07 11-12/07
01-02/08 03-04/08 05/08 06-07/08
08-09/08 10/08 11-12/08 01/09
02-03/09 04-05/09 06-07/09 08/09-6 Jan 2010
01-06/10 07-11/10 12/10-02/11 03-12/11
2012 01-06/13 07-12/13 2014
2015* 2016* * *

* = still to archive

Mitre Peak[edit]

Happy new year to you. A very long time ago, you moved Mitre Peak (New Zealand) to Mitre Peak, New Zealand with the edit summary "per NZ Naming convs". Those may have been the conventions of the day, but they no longer are. Could you move it back, please, and do a history merge? Schwede66 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've never worked out how to do a history merge, but I'm quite happy for it to be moved back... Grutness...wha? 23:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The history merge business doesn't look straightforward, to be honest. And it can be done anytime by an admin. So if you could move the page, I'll request the merge. Schwede66 01:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK - done. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Requesting a history merge turns out to be very easy. Schwede66 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I thought I'd tidy up the various subcategories of mountains of New Zealand. Some redirects with edit histories are in place that stop me from moving the article. If you could please do the deletion honours, I'll look after the history merge requests: Pukeiti (Auckland) Schwede66 03:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. That one's done - just list any others you want renaming here and I'll do them as soon as I can. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I've done them all (maybe two dozen). Schwede66 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been cited as an expert...[edit]

... here. Ultra-short précis: brand-new good-faith editor getting into a bit of unfortunate strife about the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Miss-click[edit]

Hi Grutness. My sincere apologies - I accidentally rolled back an edit of yours; I've fixed it straight way [1] but just to advise it was a slip of the finger on the mouse. Apologies again. Pedro :  Chat  11:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine - these things happen. Thanks for letting me know! Grutness...wha? 23:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote[edit]

Hi Grutness. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (67th to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for taking part in my survey!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Aww - that's cute! Thanks :) Grutness...wha? 12:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Future Tactical Truck Systems (which should be System)[edit]

Hi Grutness. Yes, it was that AUSA. Sorry, I'm new to Wiki and sometimes forget to check things like correct links and stuff. By the way, as you appear 'expert' I wonder if you could help me with something... FTTS was sometimes presented as Future Tactical Trucks Systems, and that's what the Wiki page is called, but it was actually System not Systems. Do you know how to make that change? I've tried and failed miserably! Wolpat (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I'll do that. It's easy once you get the hang of it - Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve though! :) Grutness...wha? 00:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability query[edit]

Hyde Street party - is that notable? Schwede66 15:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Marginal at best, I'd say... perhaps best merged into Otago University Students' Association. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. Schwede66 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Te Urewera National Park[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Te Urewera National Park , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. -- haminoon (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunedin[edit]

I see you are the principal contributor to the Dunedin page. Thank you for all your work, (not forgetting the others). I write to thank you because the page is just so very good. Cheers.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I don't know that I'm the principle contributor, but I did do quite a lot towards it. I'm glad you like the page! Grutness...wha?

Flagstaff Hill, Port Chalmers[edit]

Another ref to this name - [2] as well as the quote from the Coronial Inquest. regards Richard Bruce Bradford (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of documents referring to it as Flagstaff Hill since making the original query, but it's far from a common name for it. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg You're having a Steak and Cheese Pie because of your good editing. Whakaoriori (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Grutness...wha? 22:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome family tree![edit]

Kia ora Grutness, just wanted to say "wow" to the Valpy family tree that you added to Juliet's page! That's so helpful. I remember reading about the sixth child in the Dunedin family, will have to go back and find that information. She stayed in England with her husband while the rest of them emigrated. Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary

Thanks - it took longer to make than I expected, but it was worthwhile. I got a lot of the info for it from "Southern People: A Dictionary of Otago-Southland Biography", which has quite a bit more info about several of the family. It's good to see you adding some information to some of the articles. (For what it's worth, I live only about 200 metres from the end of Valpy Street :) Grutness...wha? 04:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's very clear and helpful. That sounds like a useful resource; I used Charlotte Macdonald's book "The Book of NZ Women" for most of the information on the Valpy sisters, and some online research as well. MurielMary (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary
I've left a message about the family tree on Commons, but you may not keep on eye on it, hence the prompt here. Schwede66 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers - done Grutness...wha?

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, can I suggest the following amendments (in bold) to the family tree, please?

  • Caroline V. (18041884)
  • William Henry V. (1832–1911); turn the box green
  • Penelope E. (?–1924)

I see that this website has a rather shorter life span for W. H. Valpy, Jr.'s wife, but it's full of other mistakes, so I shall just dismiss that. Schwede66 18:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. I've added a little further information - in some parts from that site, so hopefully it's mainly accurate. I do note though that it lists Henry Fulton as Herbert Fulton (and his son as Julius Herbert F). Grutness...wha? 23:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Bishops in *[edit]

Please do not add the categories "Bishops in *" to articles on Roman Catholic bishops. Instead, please construct a category for the diocese in the manner of Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Jackson and place the bishop in it. This does not work for auxiliaries, unfortunately, I am trying to think of a clean solution given the existing hierarchies. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The only one I have made was for bishops in Mississippi, which is intended for both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic bishops, and exactly parallels similar categories for 47 other US states. If the one I have made was wrong, so are those other 47. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It is wrong for Roman Catholic bishops. If you'll notice, in each of those categories, for example Category:Bishops in Mississippi, there is a subcategory called e.g. Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Mississippi which ties into the Roman Catholic hierarchy of categories. Category:Bishops in Mississippi should only be used for non-Catholic bishops. Roman Catholic bishops are members of the "Bishops in *" categories by way of diffusion into child categories. Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
So, in order to work on the category I'm filling (Religious leaders in Foo), you'd like me to make a category (Bishops in a state), then make a subcategory of it (Roman Catholic bishops in a state), then make a further subcategory of that (Roman Catholic bishops of a diocese)? Yet you also expect Episcopal bishops to just be left haphazardly in the Bishops in Foo category? In that case I'll just mark them as religious leaders and not bother trying to be helpful by adding that they're also bishops. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to be too lazy to observe the proper category hierarchy then I'll just have to go around reverting you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Not being lazy, as a quick glance at how many edits I'm doing will indicate. If you prefer not to have them in any categories at all, as they are at present, then that's fine by me, I can easily stop the work I'm doing. Threats of reverting useful edits is disruptive, and could easily get you blocked from editing, as I'm sure other admins will agree. As someone who has been around Wikipedia nearly as long as I have and has more than 30,000 edits, you should know not to be disruptive. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Putting them in the wrong categories is disruptive, and I'm here to stop that from happening. You can either put them in the right categories or we can escalate this dispute. The ball is in your court. Elizium23 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Elizium23, your talk page conduct is below par. Schwede66 17:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

I guess that it is that time of the year once more my friend. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


Season's greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

DYK for Whakamana Cannabis Museum[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Peaked at 2000. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Stubadub[edit]

Hi you deleted the page recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubadub) and would like to know under what reason did you do so. The page is in reference to a Twitch streamer that is doing moderately well on the site. (this artical is not about the person himself but the channel itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bighalo2 (talkcontribs) 09:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The streamer is decidedly not notable - there doesn't seem to be any evidence for anything remotely encyclopedic online. Google returns only 700 hits for Stubadub, and most of them are either mis-spellings of the band Stubbadub (which is also not notable) or for a piece of software. Whether the article was about a real person or not, it was still not one which should be in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dam[edit]

Hi Grutness! I notice you have moved Dam (rural Australia) to Dam (agricultural reservoir). This is not an improvement for two reasons:

  • Apart from the "home dam", which is used for non-drinking uses at the homestead, dams are not a feature of agricultural properties — more the province of pastoral properties, where they serve the vital purpose of keeping the stock alive.
  • America, where the greatest number of Wikipedia users live, and has a far greater agricultural sector than Australia and New Zealand, does not know this meaning for the word "dam".

Can you think of a better disambiguation term? Otherwise I propose having this reverted. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, when I saw the new article, my immediate thought was that "Australian" was an inappropriate part of the disambiguator, given that it's not a feature confined to that country. Schwede66 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was a peculiarly Australian usage until I was taken to task by a very experienced (American) Wikipedian —

(from my archives): In the article T. J. Richards, "...drowned in a dam while intoxicated..." is difficult for an American to understand. A "dam" is a big solid structure, with water behind it, to an American, not the water that someone could drown in. A translation from the Australian, please, so we all understand. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a term which would make more sense in the US? Here we use "dam wall" for the structure, which may be of stone and earth, and "dam" to the whole facility, which would maybe cover an acre and a depth of ten feet. I suspect the man knew what he was doing but the inquest spared his family by releasing the finding of accidental death. Doug butler (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Good work with the footnote. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug (and others) - it's not a peculiarly Australian usage, being widely used in New Zealand, some parts of the UK, and South Africa (I think). The reason I used the disambiguator "agricultural reservoir" is because the term "reservoir" is unequivocably about the water rather than the structure itself (unless there is an American usage I don't know of where the term "reservoir" means a dam wall). I've never heard of the term "home dam" - it may be only an American usage. I would disagree with one of your points, though - dams are definitely widely found in agricultural properties, for, as you say, the purpose of keeping stock alive (pastoralism is, after all, just a sub-type of agriculture, and not a very widely used term for it). I'd have no objection to it being moved to Dam (pastoral reservoir), if that would make more sense to Americans. I would note, though, that there are quite a few disambiguators which are confusing to non-Americans, and we manage quite happily with them. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grutness: You're right that "agriculture" embraces the farming of livestock, but in Australia at least, a "pastoral property" means unimproved grazing land, whereas "agricultural property" usually means cultivated land, for wheat or whatever. "Home dam" was a common expression in Clarendon, South Australia when I was growing up; no way were the cows allowed there! Doug butler (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense - thanks for the clarification! Grutness...wha? 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating[edit]

I rated the page March 1932 lunar eclipse as a stub and of low importance. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, but that looks accurate. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prohibition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegging (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) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

New Zealander Australians move[edit]

If you have reliable sources backing up the use of "New Zealand Australians" as being the correct nomenclature for people of New Zealand descent as Australian citizens, please table these at the article's talk page. There is nothing nonsensical about "New Zealander Australians" (unless you consider that New Zealanders should be changed to New Zealands). I've reverted the article WP:TITLE to the consensus version as it stood.

I'm happy to discuss this further if you can identify an absolute grammatical rule covering the correct and incorrect usage of New Zealander vs. New Zealand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New Zealander is a noun-only demonym - the adjectival form is New Zealand. No other article of this type uses a noun form - it's Swedish Americans not Swede Americans, Scottish Australians not Scot Australians, and Danish Canadians not Dane Canadians, for example. Furthermore, New Zealanders in Australia are called New Zealand Australians. To change it back would be incorrect in terms of grammar, usage, and Wikipedia precedent. If you are looking for evidence of difference, I suggest Heinemann's New Zealand dictionary, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, The Readers Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary, or the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I would also suggest you check List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations and the notes on adjectival usage at Wiktionary. By the way, the only reference listed in that article which purports to use the term is the first one, which is referenced six times. Unfortunately, that particular reference doesn't mention New Zealand or New Zealanders at all. Here, however, is an example of the correct term being used: [3], and another, and another... Grutness...wha? 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
PS - I've corrected the grammar on the article title again... in line with all other related categories and articles. Since it doesn't seem to have been debated in the past, I don't know where you get the idea that there has been a consensus on it. Given the grammar used by the other articles I mentioned, it seems more likely that any consensus implied is with the correct grammatical form. Grutness...wha?
No, no, there's no need to go into further details. I'd changed it from the incorrect singular form to the incorrect plural form a few months ago as part of a rush job in moving swathes of diasporic ethnic group names to the plural form. To be honest, I hadn't even thought through the permutations of New Zealand in its adjectival form (i.e., I just turned the existing title into the plural form). Cheers for picking up on it and the tidy! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Phew :) S'alright. I was afraid this was going to turn into an argument. Sorry if I got my back up! I've left a message on the article's talk page in case anyone else queries it. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I also would have moved this page on sight without further discussion. Schwede66 03:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for making you nervous, Grutness. It isn't good news when experienced, good faith editors start making each other feel edgy. There's more than enough battleground editing to go around. I try not to make my ES and commentary brusque, but it does happen... I'm also aware of the fact that it would have been better to leave the move as was and go straight to the 'discuss' part of WP:BRD rather than reverting.
Sadly, Wikipedia seems to have escalated to being so combative that we're all ready to start lobbing grenades when an owl hoots. I spend so much time editing ARB sanctioned areas that I don't always manage to keep my cool when I should. A pleasure to meet you (and Schwede66). If either of you ever need a third opinion, etc., feel free to ping me. As incongruous as it may sound, I'm actually relatively sane and know my way around WP:PG... and my knowledge of English grammar an' speling an' stuf iz youzhaly usually real, real well good, like! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thanks for that - yes, I've spent enough time in editor arguments to be a bit too brusque sometimes myself, so I know what you mean. No harm done. Good to meet you, and yes, I'll keep you in mind if a third opinion's needed. I didn't realise it was possible to stay sane once you started learning all the policies and guidelines! Cheers. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stubs[edit]

The Stubs are bogus; brief the descriptions of cultivars may appear, but there's nothing that could be added beyond a full description of the species, which would be utterly superfluous, and if there were, it hardly needs an invitation. Moreover, the curator of the Longstock collection informs that the latest research at Kew has returned the genus to Buddlejaceae, not Scroph., which was the classification used by Norman in her seminal work on American buddleja. Ptelea (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Even though one curator, no matter how expert, has re-classified a genus, this does not mean that the botanical world in general has done so. In Wikipedia, Category:Buddleja is still regarded as a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, and until such time as there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that it should be moved, due to overwhelming support for reclassification among botanists, that is where it should stay - as such, using that particular stub descriptor is appropriate.
  • As to the actual use of the stub, let's take an example article: Buddleja davidii 'Blue Horizon'. The article makes no mention of where or when it was first developed other than "recently" (a term to be avoided on Wikipedia) or who introduced it into commerce. It does not say from what variety if was developed as a cultivar (or for that matter whether it was a wild form that was domesticated). It mentions that in 2012 it was not known to have been introduced into North America - outdated information possibly - and makes no mention of whether it is grown elsewhere outside the UK. You so sure nothing could be added beyond a full description of the species? Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • B. dav.'Blue Horizon'; granted it could remain a stub, but the exception proves the rule. The majority of articles average 100 words exc. refs. and offer all the information the gardener or horticulturist could want: photo, history / origin, biometrics, flower colour, hardiness, and synonyms, if any. Please review 'African Queen' or 'Adokeep' (ADONIS BLUE), or 'Autumn Beauty' etc etc and advise what else you think could usefully be included. By comparison, the esteemed RHS New Encyclopaedia of Plants & Flowers offers fewer than 40 words on the two dav. cvs. featured ('Royal Red' and 'Black Knight'), while the Hilliers' Manual summarizes both in 10.
  • Scrophulariaceae, Wiki article: This muddled piece is prefaced by the warning "This article needs a comparison between the current and obsolete circumscriptions of the group, its current composition, and the present location of excluded taxa. None of these issues is adequately dealt with here". Returning Buddleja to Buddlejaceae was not the whim of a collection curator (merely my informant), rather the Royal Botanic Garden Kew. It is interesting to note that the ongoing monumental Flora of China project retains Buddleja in Loganiaceae. See http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=201209 . Regards, Ptelea (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "The esteemed RHS New Encyclopaedia of Plants & Flowers" may only have fewer than 40 words on the only two davidii cultivars it lists, and Hilliers' Manual may only have room for a handful of words. As print volumes, they are no doubt restricted by space. Their lack of coverage doesn't mean that no more information is available - if it did, why do we have over 100 davidii cultivar articles in Wikipedia? They surely exist, and we have information on them, yet neither of those volumes says anything about them at all. Clearly, those two esteemed volumes don't say everything there is to say about those cultivars. Neither, currently, do we. Perhaps casting your eye on this article might convince you that our are still stubs. Or maybe this one. If you prefer things to be spelled out, though: African Queen - from which varieties pf Buddleja Davidii was is cultivated? Is it hybridised in any way? It is "widely cultivated" where? Apparently it's grown in the UK, and presumably in the Netherlands, but where else? How hardy is it? Does it prefer specific soil types? When does it flower and for how long? Adokeep - where does the name come from? Who gave it the alternative name of Adonis Blue? Is it cultivated anywhere outside the UK? Again, does it prefer specific conditions, and if so what? Is there any reason why it is so much smaller than most buddlejas, perhaps from its origins? Autumn Beauty - what other possible taxonomies have been suggested for it and why? What types of soil does it prefer? When was it registered? It's a British cultivar grown from Chinese seeds - what variety was the parent Chinese variety? Similar questions can be asked of almost all the buddleja articles.
  • Again, if there are problems with the main Scorphulariaceae article, handle them there first. Discuss them with other relevant editors (e.g., WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening), and when consensus has been reached, the changes will or won't be made, depending on the outcome. Don't individually decide that you don't like the way a system is being used on Wikipedia and change some aspects of it on a whim - don't treat the symptoms and let the disease continue.If consensus finds that these are the wrong stubs, then they will be changed accordingly - all of them, along with analogous templates and categories - not just a seemingly random group of them which you have decided to change. Removing the currently accepted standard stub tags from articles which are appropriately tagged is disruptive editing, and your edits have been reverted. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the direction to the Missouri BG Plant Finder page on 'Adokeep' ADONIS BLUE. On first sight, I was truly humbled; a whole page to one plant. Alas, on actually reading it, one discovers 85% of the text is devoted to the species, not the cultivar, the latter accorded just seven lines (fewer words than the Wiki article) relegated to the foot of the page. Not impressed, and heaven forbid that kind of superfluous, sloppy copy-and-paste duplication ever become the standard for Wikipedia. As for the family contention (your comments duly noted) I am indebted to Sminthopsis who has revised the Buddlejaceae page, neatly clarifying the present situation. Again, until such time as the matter is resolved, I'd rather such unsafe classification was not further peddled by your stubs. The articles are indeed short, but that is because ultimately there is little else of relevance to say about cvs. largely raised to satisfy the demand for smaller plants for ever smaller gardens.Ptelea (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice of you to cherry-pick one out of the many points I raised without addressing any of the other points, all of which make it clear that there is far more which can be written about these articles. You asked about one article, I suggested many ways that it could be extended. So you said that was perhaps a poor example and mentioned three more - so I pointed out ways in which all of those could be extended. They are clearly stubs, and - as mentioned before - if the appropriate WikiProjects are happy enough with that taxonomy at present, and see no problems with Wikipedia's article and permanent catalogue tree reflecting that taxonomy, then the stub categories automatically follow suit. Sminthopsis's alterations to that one article are useful in clarifying the situation, but they do nothing to extend the change to the hundreds of buddleja articles across Wikipedia - Category:Buddleja is still a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, and moving it would no doubt affect the work of other botany editors. If you and Sminthopsis between you can convince other Wikipedians in the appropriate botany-related wikiprojects - or by a discussion on article or category talk pages - that the current taxonomy is incorrect, then fair enough. As I said, once permanent categories have been changed, stub categories will follow suit. Until that time, though, stub types should stay as they are - stub categories directly parallel permanent categories, and if Category:Buddleja is a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, then buddleja should get the equivalent stub type. Resolve that, one way or another, and the stub problem will be solved. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karetai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whalers (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) 09:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uzbek (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) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

HotCat[edit]

Nuvola apps package toys svg.svg

I see you are currently doing a lot of category work, but it seems you haven't discovered HotCat. Easy enough to turn it on; much easier to then do category work. I only discovered over the weekend while helping some newbies that it isn't enabled by default. Schwede66 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - I have used it in the past, but I use an ancient browser and it's caused a few problems in the past. I'll have to try it again see whether any of the bugs have been ironed out :) Grutness...wha? 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Ha! It looks like it works fine now - thanks! Grutness...wha? 08:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

HSF RFC[edit]

Request for comment on Hard science fiction edit history --Tim (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dunedin Study[edit]

Hi, friend! It's a while since you added anything to the Dunedin Study (which should be a redirect because outside organisations use that phrase). Maybe you're interested in incorporating some of http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/80402120/dunedin-providing-the-data-that-could-shape-humanitys-future - including maybe a sentence about the 11-year-old potential psychotics and the quote "... most of everything that happens to older people is related to how they lived their lives as young people and what happened to them when children and what kind of start they got."

I'm out of practice at proper WP citing and formatting, though I might add something more to the NZ wikia article.

Kind regards

Robin Patterson (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have much time right now for much WP related... will try to add something when things in the real world calm down a bit! Grutness...wha? 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of countries by southernmost point, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cabo de Santa Maria and Hai'an (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) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs, 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. ~ RobTalk 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashington, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Berwick and Blyth (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) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging stub cats/templates[edit]

See this discussion. To avoid rehashing old territory, I just wanted to make sure I have the "how" of this correct before I do it. Since these regions have actually been merged in reality, this would be a situation where the stub sorters would consider it appropriate to actually merge the templates rather than just changing the category, correct? Would template redirects work to merge in {{NordPasdeCalais-railstation-stub}} as I typically would do, or is there a technical reason we should be manually replacing each template? Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case, yes, since the regions have been merged there's enough reason to use template redirects from the former names to a new {{NordPasdeCalais-railstation-stub}}. It would have the advantage that if France decides to go back to the former divisions (unlikely, but possible), many of the stubs would already be appropriately marked. This isn't a standard stub upmerging (e.g., if the stub categories for Picardy and Nord-Pas-de-Calais had simply been too small, but the places themselves continued to exist), which would have seen the former templates remain. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought; thanks for confirming! ~ Rob13Talk 02:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Curse you![edit]

You got me interested in stub sorting, not that I needed another editing interest on my plate. Face-smile.svg I've set up an extra bit of tracking at Category:Stub categories needing attention under the U anchor which automatically populates with any stub categories that are potentially undersized (less than 50 pages). These won't all need maintenance, since some may be containers for other large categories, but many of them will. I'm going through them and seeing where AWB could feasibly be used to move articles to more specific stub categories from the more general ones. I suspect we'll also find a good number of genuinely bad stub categories in there. ~ Rob13Talk 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh Face-smile.svg - I must admit I'd pretty much given up on stub sorting a couple of years ago, but I've found myself drifting back into it. It's addictive. Automated monitoring of undersized categories sounds like a great idea... another useful tool to mention on WP:WSS! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, does Category:1936 Winter Olympics stubs look like a candidate for an upmerge to you? I checked the Category:1936 Winter Olympics category tree and there's no more population to be done unless we start throwing the competitors in there as well. ~ Rob13Talk 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Possibly - you're right that there doesn't seem like much room for expansion. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Why would competitors not be part of that stub category, given that this is further down in the category tree? Schwede66 02:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
They would be in a subcategory... if there are enough of them, though, it might save the stub category. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Winter Olympic medalist stubs is the same "depth" as the 1936-specific stub category; one below the general "Winter Games" category. In my opinion, it makes more sense to keep them there. Otherwise, we'll see a proliferation of by-year stub templates and categories which largely overlap, since competitors in some sports often compete in more than one olympics. We don't currently have any 1936-specific competitor stub template, so we'd need to create and populate that as well. Seems like a lot of work for not much gain. ~ Rob13Talk 03:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
and IIRC the usual way to split them is by country rather than year - which makes sense, because a lot of them would have gone to more than one olympics. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposing stub categories/templates[edit]

What's the general procedure, usually? I'm aware of WP:WSS/P, but it doesn't seem to get much traffic and there's only been a couple dozen proposals since April 2015, which seems extraordinarily low. Are stub templates/categories regularly created outside that process? Do I take no response as affirmation? Not sure what the "norms" are here. ~ Rob13Talk 20:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In theory, WSS/P should be used for all proposals, but if the stub types are speediable (as defined at the top of the page) the process page is often bypassed - which is what most stub types seem to be currently, since the system is pretty well established. No response is basically the same as affirmation, since a main purpose of the page is to offer suggestions of modifications to the proposal or to reject any poor suggestions. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)