User talk:Grutness/archive59

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Happy New Year, Grutness!

Happy New Year!

Grutness,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to you too! Happy 2023! Grutness...wha? 23:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Cfdshot.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cfdshot.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Felix QW (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW: Given that you're talking about an image of a Wikipedia page, it should be obvious that the attribution is CC-by-SA, as is stated on the image page. In any case, the image was only uploaded temporarily with the understanding that it would be deleted once the problem illustrated was fixed. Sixteen years ago. Why no-one deleted it shortly after its use is a mystery to me. PS - for future reference, it's not normal practice to use a boilerplate template implying that someone is new to Wikipedia's standards and policies when messaging long-standing Wikipedians (which I think I qualify as, having been an admin here for a decade and a half!) It's no biggie to me, but you will find some editors getting very annoyed about it. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grutness,

Sorry for the template, and for not being clearer - the notification template is added by Twinkle when notifying editors after placing a speedy deletion tag for a file. The derivative work refers to the Internet Explorer browser rather than the Wikipedia page, and the quickest way to have it deleted now is through a speedy deletion tag. I only noticed it because it has spent almost the entirety of its 16 year existence in a clean-up category for images with disputed licensing, which I am now sifting through to clear the backlog. I could of course have PRODded it instead, which may have been clearer. Felix QW (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I never even considered that the browser image would be a problem! Could probably be speedied since I'm the only editor of the image file itself - all the other edits are clean-up/deletion template adds. In any case, feel free to delete it :) Grutness...wha? 13:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Clairmont

Hi there, I was thinking of doing a page on Phil Clairmont and found you had already done one some time ago. I knew Phil very well and would like to expand the page but seriously don't want to cause you any grief given how kind you have been to this newcomer to Wiki. Not sure how to move forward on this. Would it be appropriate for me to send you a copy of what I have? And if so what is the best way to do that? - can you look at my sandbox page for instance. Essentially I have expanded the biography and added an exhibitions section. Strangely the name Clairmont was invented by Phil's mother and not given to him until he was quite old...no idea where she got it from. Hope your New Year has started well. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manymanydogs: Don't worry about it - go ahead and post what you have on that page. Wikipedia doesn't work by one person "owning" a page - if you can improve on a page that's already there, just go ahead and do so - but don't be surprised if someone else comes along and edits or adds more to it again later! The only proviso I'd make is to make sure what you put there is referenced - knowing the person you're writing about is a big advantage, but it can also be a problem because anything that put there which you simply know by acquaintance and isn't referenced might be challenged as original research or conflict of interest. Other than that though, feel free to add whatever you have to the article. Happy new year to you, too! Grutness...wha? 01:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. Will check it over and make the changes later in the week. Manymanydogs (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Grutness...wha? 02:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Princes Street, Dunedin

Princes Street, Dunedin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18th Adminship Anniversary

Grutness, I had to add a more personal touch to the template and thank you, not only for the time you spent as an admin here but for your message of community. I fully believe we need more co in community and I support any effort to build the community as a structure around the encyclopedia bolstering its purpose and effectiveness. You have my upmost respect and appreciation. I see your Colors and I hear your Song. Keep shining and keep singing. Remember to be a Rainbow in someone's sky, today. --ARose Wolf 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll do my best :) Grutness...wha? 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter Chanel School (disambiguation)

Hallo, I'm puzzled by your move: there doesn't seem to be a primary topic, so surely the dab page should be at the basic name? Or am I missing something? PamD 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was puzzled, too, TBH. Schwede 66 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Tired editing :) I'll move it back. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen! Thanks. PamD 06:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Index troubles

Hi there, Sorry to use you to patch up my errors again, but noticed that in the Robert Leonard page the category listings for 'New Zealand curator' and 'art writer' have Robert's name indexed under R rather than L. As you can imagine I have no idea how to sort this out. Can you help? Cheers Manymanydogs (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manymanydogs: Sure. It's easy - there's a special "magic word" template called Template:DEFAULTSORT. You add it above the category links at the bottom of the article with however you want the categories to sort (in this case, {{DEFAULTSORT:Leonard, Robert}}). If you want some categories to index one way and others in another you can pipe categories in exactly the same way as you pipe article links (e.g., [[Category:New Zealand curators|Leonard, Robert]]). Hope that helps :) Grutness...wha? 00:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jennings, Saint Mary for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennings, Saint Mary is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennings, Saint Mary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

it's all fading away^talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Perfectly acceptable article, now saved. Grutness...wha?

Cornwall football teams

What is a football league pyramid? And why single out one team? That is what I meant by puffery. Also you gave no source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: The football pyramid is the English football league system. Truro City FC is by far the highest ranked Cornish team, in level six, two flights below League Two. The next highest-ranked Cornish team is Mousehole FC, two flights lower down in level eight. There are several Cornish teams in level nine (Falmouth Town, Helston Athletic, and St. Blazey), which is where Mousehole played last season - it would thus seem odd to include them and not the other three teams. So it was a case of listing just Truro or listing five teams. This is all thoroughly cited and sources in the articles on Truro City F.C. and National League South, and the pyramid is explained at English football league pyramid. BTW, "puffery" means excessive hype, which would be a very odd description for what I added, which was factual objective information relating to sport in Cornwall. Grutness...wha? 12:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much more accurate to say they play at various levels in the English football league. Must say that during 50 years working in sports coverage, I've never heard it referred to as a pyramid. Teams being in the lower leagues is hardly noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the county overview. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of them play in the Football League. They play in the English football league pyramid, and all the clubs are below the Football League level. And the level of the top Cornish team in the pyramid is definitely noteworthy enough for the sports section of the article. I'm amazed that someone who has worked in sports coverage so long has never heard of the pyramid - it is the standard way of referring to it, and has been for quite a few years now. Everyone from the BBC to the Premier League refer to it in that way. The same term has become common in other national football league systems, from New Zealand to Ghana. Grutness...wha? 13:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Paul

Hi there, thanks again for tidying up my casualness. It was a big overhaul of the page but she is such a great artist. cheers, Jim Manymanydogs (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Grutness...wha? 05:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the styling has gone a bit awry...not sure how or why (might just be my machine that is a bit off at the moment). If you have a minute sometime could you look at it. I know I should be doing code but the visual editor is about as much as I can manage at the moment and don't think it is up to it! Cheers Manymanydogs (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now that it is a style you have engaged when there is more than one item per year. Manymanydogs (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you watching my edits?

Nothing wrong with it, I've just noticed that you've been editing articles that I've also edited. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu: I was while you were making the new island articles. Other than that I do a lot of checking on new NZ articles in general, so it's likely that I'll have seen any that you've made. No offence intended! (FWIW User:StolenThought probably thinks the same - s/he's been making a lot of NZ football articles lately that I've edited!) Grutness...wha? 05:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So your recent edits to Face-ism and List of cryptosporidiosis outbreaks after I did was a coincidence? Don't take my curiousity as a form of annoyance or anything, just curious that's all! —Panamitsu (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The crypto one I got to from the Queenstown outbreak one. And yes, the other one was coincidence (I had no idea you'd just edited it!) - my university thesis was in visual perception and I often edit articles related to it (such as my edit to McCollough effect and starting of an Interocular transfer stub today). Grutness...wha? 07:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's quite a funny coincidence! Apologies for my borderline paranoid sounding question, my curiosity got the better of me :). No offense taken! —Panamitsu (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'New' marine reserves

I'm not sure if you've heard, but six new marine reserves have been announced. You've created a lot of NZ geography articles so you may be interested. I've created drafts for all of these reserves. Draft:Waitaki Marine Reserve, Draft:Te Umu Kōau Marine Reserve, Draft:Papanui Marine Reserve, Draft:Ōrau Marine Reserve, Draft:Ōkaihae Marine Reserve, Draft:Hākinikini Marine Reserve. It will probably take until next year until they officially become marine reserves, which means that a new government has the possibility of scrapping them. Do you think that it would be WP:TOOSOON to publish these into article space? —Panamitsu (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mmm. Possibly. I'd wait until a few more details are know - about their extent, for instance. It'd be good to actually have location maps for them and it might take a while until the actual boundaries are finalised. Good work though, and I'm pretty sure that there will be enough for article space long before the reserves are actually inaugurated. It might be also worth asking a couple of other prominent NZ editors (someone like User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, and User:Paora) for their opinions. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panamitsu: Yes, I'd suggest waiting until the reserves are gazetted and in place before publishing. Until then, they are merely proposed reserves. Paora (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– @Panamitsu Perhaps you could add a list of "Proposed reserves" to Marine reserves of New Zealand and redirect to that list for now? PamD 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 00:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rugby league players from Aberdare

A tag has been placed on Category:Rugby league players from Aberdare indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It looks like User: Crowsus had emptied this into its parent category, for no apparent reason. Worth watching other League player by town in Wales categories, which may have suffered the same fate (I rescued two others as well). Grutness...wha? 05:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I've found 12 others which have been similarly emptied :( Grutness...wha? 05:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand he's been doing the same with other sports, too. :((( Grutness...wha? 06:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For F's sake... he's removed categories from over 2000 articles! Over 250 rugby league and rugby union categories have been emptied. I hope you can hold off deleting them - they should be repopulated. Grutness...wha? 06:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my part in creating this unnecessary workload. I've been tagging empty categories for almost as long as I've been an editor which is 10 years now. Crowsus does a lot of recategorizing for sportspeople categories, particularly for athletes in the UK, although I had never seen it done before at this scale. Maybe he was using AWB? That editing tool can result in small problems escalating into larger ones. I've posted notices to their talk page asking them to not empty out categories but I've found that editors who do a lot of work with categories and recategorizing projects ignore those messages because, I suppose, they believe that their experience and expertise allows them to know better. In fact most categories that are "emptied out of process" are done by either very new editors or very experienced editors that I see regularly at CFD discussions. And, I'm not sure you've noticed this but it is harder to get experienced editors to change how they edit than it is to get less experienced editors to adapt their editing habits.

But I shouldn't have relied on my past experience with Crowsus and their recategorizing efforts blind me to the fact that working outside of CFD on a recategorizing project at this scale needs some community review. Because I see all of the categories that have been emptied, I do know of at several other editors who over the past few months have done something similar on less visible subjects than athletes, like changing the categories for all of the villages in Turkey or the districts for many of the towns in the Ukraine. Since I'm not an expert on rugby or cricket players or villages in Turkey, I usually bow to their experience and knowledge but if you have a better solution to experienced editors emptying categories or recategorizing entire branches of a category tree, I'd welcome hearing your opinion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, almost all of the 300+ categories that Crowsus emptied had been created by the same, currently blocked editor so I had thought perhaps they had been incorrectly set up. But that's still not a great excuse for me not to stop after the first dozen of empty categories and ask what was going on. But in case you are unaware, empty categories sit in a holding category, Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, for 7 days just to address problems like this should they arise. It often happens that categories are only temporarily empty and the tag is removed. But the tagging of the category starts the 7 day waiting period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, finally, there is a little-known but great script, User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer, that will allow you to see what articles/pages have been recently added or removed from a category, which editor added or removed them and the date of the action. It's very useful for repopulating categories. For some reason, we have quite a few editors who nominate categories for deletion at WP:CFD and then empty the category before the discussion is closed. I've stated many times how this defeats the purpose of having a deletion discussion but that hasn't stopped it from happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now Crowsus has repeated their actions and there are over 200 categories that have been emptied (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories). I'm certainly not going to retag them since they have already gone through tagging and untagging process. I left a message on their talk page but this is becoming disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks for all your help on this! Grutness...wha? 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Grutness, to be honest, I don't know what to do at this point. There are still almost two hundred Sportspeople from X categories that are empty for several days now. Do I retag them? Do we revert Crowsus' edits? They are clearly not going to do so despite requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm filling a dozen or so per day, but I simply haven't the time to go through all of them in one hit. Reverting might be the best way - that way at least we'll know which categories are undersized and can be sent to cfd. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: - I think I've refilled all 300 or so (except for a few which didn't have any potential entries, which I deleted), and made "back-trees" for a few where it didn't look like they'd be viable (e.g., for Rugby union players from Foo, I might have needed to make Sportspeople from Foo, People from Foo, and Foo categories). Next it'll be a case of going through them in batches and see which ones should go to cfd. That was a lot of work, and I think I need to have a lie down now! Grutness...wha? 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness, thank you for taking on this time consuming task. If it was me, because I know nothing about rugby, I would have considered doing a big revert of all of the edits that emptied these categories but you took your time and were more careful about it. I realize what an investment of time that probably was. I still see a few of them in the Empty categories category but I assume they are legitimately empty. Thanks again and I hope this kind of incident doesn't come up again...we might not always have an admin or editor who cares as much about fixing the problem as you did. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - just chalk it down to my OCD :) Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summer City (Wellington)

Just like to thank you for your fine edits on the summer city (Wellington) article... barthomme b'art homme 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

No problem - glad they were appreciated! Grutness...wha? 03:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cars, One Night

Hi, I am asking you this because you are living in New Zealand and have edited Two Cars, One Night. My curiosity is piqued on one small issue (too small to ask that on the article's talk page): None of the prominent featured cars have side mirrors, the "middle-mirror behind the windscreen" is featured, though. Are these side mirrors at the outside of driver's (and front passenger's) side not mandatory in NZ? The cars also not look like these mirrors have been removed for a better filming experience. -- Rava77 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For cars manufactured from 2000, they must have an internal mirror plus a right-side external mirror. For cars before 2000 (which would probably apply to the film you mention), they must have either an internal mirror or a right-side external mirror.[1]-gadfium 05:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains it, the cars all look like they have been manufactured before 2000, so only the internal mirror would do. Thanks for the heads up. Rava77 (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - Gadfium's right. Thanks for answering Rava77's question, G! Grutness...wha? 07:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000s New Zealand single stub template

Hello,

What happened with Template:2000s-NZ-single-stub and Template:2000s-NewZealand-single-stub? They redirect to each other and I can't find any remnants of the original template in either page's history... Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn good question. I've restored an early deleted version of the stub - should work now. No idea why the move went dramatic. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]