User talk:Oculi/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

GB English edit on John Wesley article

I noticed that you reverted another editor's switch from GB English to U.S. English in the John Wesley article. I don't make such edits myself, but I do note that the spellings in that article seem to be predominantly U.S., not GB, English. The Manual of Style suggests consistency (i.e. the predominant usage per article should prevail), so I'm not convinced that the editor was wrong to make that edit. I did not want to revert you - just to see (respectfully) what you think about this (some people feel strongly, I do not). --Scray (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You might well be right - I see a 'canceled' and another 'ize' (which is found to some extent in GB English anyway). I also find 'Wesley returned to England' without previous mention of him leaving. Feel free to revert as you wish, per MOS. Occuli (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Songs Recorded by XXX -v- XXX songs.

As you can see I feel quite strongly about this, and I am more than a little .... off that "convention" is more important than the correct use of the english language. Any ideas where I can take this debate where we are not debating 2 individual categories, but the whole shebang? Thanks for your help. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be several fold. Firstly, I agree entirely with you (in theory) as I have said. A lot of category names are shorthand, and 'Bob Dylan songs' is one. Secondly it is a mammoth undertaking to rename 1000 categories (as each one has to be listed in cfd, although a bot can do this - I have argued that in such a case it ought to be sufficient to have a general discussion on the top category which is then reflected throughout, but ...) Thirdly it doesn't help to keep repeating the same argument, as those in sympathy got it the first time and those not will simply dig in and never agree with you (see any of the more volatile discussions). There might be general agreement that a song should not be categorised at all by who recorded it - what do you think? Yesterday (song) should be in 'Songs written by Paul McCartney', 'Songs first recorded by the Beatles' ... if it is to be in any other 'recorded by' categories how do we decide which to list from the multitude of possibilities? (In this case all the 'XXX songs' would be deleted.) A final general point is that the music categories are somewhat anarchic as there must be thousands of editors beavering away with different ideas about categories ... the classical music categories in contrast are an orderly bureaucracy where planning permission is required for the slightest innovation. Occuli (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I started the change because there wasn't a "written by Dylan" cat and felt that was something that did need correcting, I then saw I had a bunch of songs left in the "Bob Dylan Songs" that didn't actually fit in that category, hence starting the new cat, and then...oh well, I do live to fight another day. Not sure if I agree with you regarding, "first recording by" if only because the only verifiable date we have is the release date. Some songs might start as a publishers' demo, be covered, then recorded by the writer i.e. Dylan's Tomorrow is a Long Time, and we have no real way of defining that. Songs written by Lennon/McCartney would suggest the prime or premier artist to record the song is the Beatles, again not failsafe, but keeps WP on an even keel. I know exactly what you mean about music categories and music related articles, most fail many WP guidelines, written and edited by fandom. Maybe I should trot over to classical and see how it should be done. Thanks again for your help and understanding. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
A problem is that anyone can start a half-baked category (without any discussion) and things mushroom out of sight. I concede that 'first recorded by' is not as straightforward as I had naively thought. (There were some Lennon/McCartney songs never recorded by the Beatles.) Did Dylan ever record the theme from Easy Rider? (bootlegs, live recordings - it is all very difficult.) Occuli (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ouch, point taken, even though I have a smile on my face! I've never seen or heard a Dylan version of Easy Rider, so I suspect not, but I am not the font of all wisdom on Mr. D. The most abused category in music is when people try to categorize by genre, afterall genre is merely how the song is arranged and most songs can be arranged in a multitude of genres. Then each band decides it doesn't fit into a certain genre and invents a new genre title for themselves... the whole thing is pretty meaningless when you get to sub-genres of sub-genres. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you managed to get a Dylan quote into the cfd - I had a feeling the phrase was familiar. Occuli (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Type designers CFD

Your comments at the Category:Type designers CFD are bang on the nail and I'd typo'd the nomination. As I've now corrected it, you might want to look at your vote again. Sorry for the confusion; I even previewed ever page I edited several times first, because I always worry about screwing up deletion/discussion nominations. Sorry! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I was saying...

Let's just say that I've <ahem> updated my CFD nom for BBC Radio 4 programmes. :) Cgingold (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust you are planning some decisive contribution to Category:A*Teens. Occuli (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture nomination

On the March 10 CfD nomination, I appreciate that you support me, but do you support the nomination? It's not clear from your comment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that altogether - I seem to have got 2 messages within a few hours (unprecedented) and only saw the last one. I've clarified my comment. Occuli (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Singleton

It's actually Jonathan Singleton and the Grove that are on Universal South, not Singleton proper, so technically the article should be at Jonathan Singleton & the Grove, which would then leave the category parentless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 16:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I will leave this in your capable hands. Occuli (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page category

Hi If I understand you correctly, this is what happened:

  1. Somebody created Category:Jimmy Page
  2. It got deleted at CfD for overcategorization
  3. I created it again (without knowing that it had ever existed before)
  4. You are asking me if anyone has mentioned it to me.

No one has brought up the fact that I created this category other than you. I also made (e.g.) Category:David Byrne because this is clearly not overcategorization (in my mind, if there are four or five subcategories and a total of a few dozen articles, it is legitimate) and big-name artists could use that kind of navigation (e.g. Category:Bob Dylan.) If you are correct about it being deleted before, it is possible that the category wasn't populated and I suppose that would be a reason to consider its deletion, but otherwise, I agree that deleting it is foolish. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted in this cfd (on the fallacious grounds that it was amply covered in Led Zepp). Of course we don't know what the category looked like then. I agree about subcats although others do not. (I created/found 2 more Dylan subcats without too much trouble, books written and films directed. Some people have too much energy.) Occuli (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. (Though I've already commented there.) I appreciate such friendly notices. Thank you.
Incidentally, you placed this on my userpage rather than my talk page. You may wish to check on your other posts, just in case. - jc37 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I had a feeling I had misplaced one (it was about 3 a.m. here) - apologies (tho' I might not check the others, as there were quite a few). Occuli (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Another fyi

this note is clearly inappropriate canvassing. As of this posting, I have not looked at your contributions history to see if there is more of the same. That said, I think you may just have invalidated the DRV discussion.

I'm not certain what specifically I should do from here, so I think I'm going to ask a few DRV regular closers as to their thoughts.

I would welcome your thoughts on this as well. - jc37 05:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He had already posted at the DRV; I'm sure that one cannot canvas post-hoc. I left the notice initially at everyone who posted in the cfds of 2009, and subsequent to NSH001's post at DRV (complaining that he had opined in 2008 but had not been informed of the 2009 cfd), at those who had posted at the cfds in 2008 (I might have missed one or 2, unintentionally); and also at the relevant Wp:Mathematics and WP:Univ of Cambridge (which is my opinion should always be done in contentious cfds). If this is canvassing then I should join wiki:Holland. I should point out that the weight of argument (said to be paramount, when it suits admins) at all the cfds is 'keep' and the weight of numbers at all but one is also keep. You seem to be reduced now to quibbling about process - rather demeaning I would have thought. Occuli (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't check the time stamps or the edit histories (as I noted in my post above).
My concern with is was that it was clearly not "neutal", and if it was the initial notice, then it was inappropriate. (And if there were other examples of this, this could be a real issue.)
As for the discussion itself, I find myself responding to what's being presented. Though there have been a few references, for the most part the debate is between those who claim that this is "defining", and therefore "deserves" categorisation, and those who are saying that this is just one of quite a few awards given out in specific fields by specific bodies, and to categorise by them all would be overcat.
Would it surprise you much if I say that I'm rather close to "I really don't care all that much, but if we're gonna have a standard, we should follow it a bit less subjectively than we are."
A certain type of thing is deleted, and everyone agrees. But let something that is another example of one of those type of things be up for discussion, and suddenly those who've made a personal investment in that particular example are screaming "Unfair, Unfair".
In other words, I rather dislike the double standards.
Having said this, and noting the tone of your comments ("reduced"?), I sincerely doubt that my comments will be received as intended. But, shrugs, you provided the opportunity, and I shared my thoughts.
Incidentally, one of these days, someone at cfd will actually respond to what I've said, and not merely with ad hominem responses. (I suppose it does happen rarely. But why provide logic when ad hominem seems to work?)
I personally think that the DRV will result in overturn. To have a result of "relist" could require extra work of the closer, and a result of endorse, extra drama for the closer. (Vote counters R us.) And I say that with no disrespect towards any closer, just been my experience of quite a few of the controversial discussions I've seen. If we see more than that, I may have to dig up a barnstar.
Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to share : ) - jc37 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The others were identical to the one you got, give or take a few minutes/hours. (I think we all wish that someone would respond to what we actually said, or think we said.) The point is that this cfd is a strawman (everyone would agree immediately with that deletion - I am assuming it never had any subcats as 'valedictorians' is not to be found in category space). If we had a cfd on 'Yale Valedictorians', that would be relevant (especially if these were reported annually in the international press with brief resumes of the top 4 or so - but you have to be on Big Brother to get anywhere these days). ('Valedictorian' is not a familiar concept in England.) I haven't myself made any investment in wranglers (other than in cfds), although I have a brother who is one and am myself, regrettably, a mere Senior Optime, undivided. I do sincerely hope it is not relisted. Occuli (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Senior Wranglers

Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I have commented at the CfD. Throwawayhack (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Dylan programming language

In answer to your question - because Harlequin is not a programming language - it is a software company.—greenrd (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Helmy Kresa

Thanks for the note, must have missed him. Not that I think he's notable per se, let's see who prods it. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hello Occuli, thanks for creating the category of Maná!! (Manafan5 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Template talk:Cfd-notify

No comment.  :) --Kbdank71 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar award

Categorystar.png The Category Barnstar
You deserve this barnstar for your consistent participation at categories for discussion. Not everyone always agrees with you on every point, but you always make a good case for your position, and you treat other users with respect. You also contribute to many discussions that are ignored or overlooked by other users, which is a valuable contribution. Congratulations!

(I hardly ever do this, but you deserve some recognition.) — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Shucks ... my usual strategy is to opine and then look away for 5 days, rather than argue the toss line by line; arguing leads to intemperate exchanges. (I had a feeling I was seen as an 'extreme inclusionist'.) Occuli (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a wise strategy, all things considered. I personally don't worry too much about trying to categorize people as "inclusionists" or "deletionists". I at least hope that most editors are more complicated than that! Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT-related television episodes up for discussion again

You had participated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes which ended five months ago with a strong consensus of keep. The subject is up for discussion again at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:LGBT-related television episodes, where you may want to review the matter at hand and express your opinion on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So I did - I don't think I looked back to see how the discussion developed (very nicely). This is another. (I had already commented.) Occuli (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ticket To Ride

Oh, I do hope you are admin, there's a guy that's moved Ticket To Ride twice today, once has already been rolled back, but he's just done it again. Somebody stop the XXX! Thanks --Richhoncho (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not as it happens (and have no wish to be). I'll have a look and see what can be done. Occuli (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be under control. Occuli (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wider input

Hi, as someone who participated in this, you may be interested in giving your opinion at this featured topic candidacy, which is currently seeking wider input before a decision can be made as to whether to promote the nomination. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif Tireless Pointer Out of that which they cannot see
SatuSuro 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the quiet sensible voice in the roar of battle - [1] - a real pity that they still bay around your comment (and probably ignore it as well) like a bunch of drunken banshees - I am certainly gonna come to you for Indonesian category issues after I have seen that comment - I refused to get involved in the general fray for a number of reasons - thanks for the common sense - I hope it works in other places :( SatuSuro 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I tried to say pretty much the same thing, lower down on the page, but since I got caught in the middle of it I'm afraid I let my emotions get the best of me. Thanks. -- SamuelWantman 07:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these remarks - I read often and report my views sometimes. It is enough to deter people from working on lists, much as cfd can deter people from bothering with categories. Occuli (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldnt put my yellow banner up here without some considerable thought - as I watched the whole thing I have remembered when I been carefully guided by some friends who are fellow eds - to be very sure to walk away from some things - and that was one - and as I say at the WP Indonesia project noticeboard - the need for AGF restrained me from any further comment. As for world of cfd - having manuualy tagged so many of the damned things (where have all the bots gone.. la la) and found so many projects with no interest in their own project maintenance - and seeing some of them get mangled at cfd - youre a brave person to stick it out - may it serve you well that you do get respect for - when you can see the mine sweepers apart from the seagrass SatuSuro 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There was some thought over several days, perhaps short of 'considerable'. Sam generally has moderate and well-founded views on most things, as in this case. Occuli (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry my miswritten item - that was to do my putting up my bright yellow banner in response to your comment at the afd - not in relation to your immediate adjacent comment - 0h dear how easy it is to have a misundestanding by my poor english at times ! oh hell SatuSuro 14:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry my miswritten item - that was to do with my bright yellow banner - not in relation to your comment - 0h dear how easy it is to havbe a misundertsnading by my poor english at times ! oh hell SatuSuro 14:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's OK ... I hope the battle will soon move elsewhere. (It's perhaps like the real world where we hear about East Timor (say) and nothing else for 3 or 4 months and then the focus shifts to Darfur/Pakistan/Zimbabwe and East Timor is never mentioned. There was the 'beleaguered enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh' mentioned daily in the early 90s and not since.) Occuli (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Only one James Burns sock in the Chinese Gamelan AfD, so wouldn't have made any difference. I'm looking at the other editor at the moment though. Black Kite 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - I had difficulty intially finding the socks (which are not under JamesBurns, but under some other name which now slips my mind). I agree that there just appeared to be JamesBurns. Occuli (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I still get the bloody Old Guildfordian (its the old boys newsletter) even though I disassociated myself in many ways from the school a very long time ago (I was there in Heath Ledgers' farthers day (when he had hair and was thinner) ... SatuSuro 14:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The UK schools cats have been hanging on to the 'Old Fooians' format for Old Boys despite opposition to both their name and their existence; and indeed most will have an 'Old Fooian' newsletter (mine does). Occuli (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In the end it is an Australian wide issue and I have sent a comment to the Oz project noticeboard - should stir some of the other Oz regulars - I am sure some of them are products of the same system :) SatuSuro 15:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes; could be interesting ... Occuli (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

More discussions on the Johnny Mercer categories

Please comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 9. As I recall, you agreed with me on the meaning of "Songs written by" and I hope you'll add your comment there, as it's now been put up for a new discussion. -- BRG (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

category rename suggestions

I've started a request at User talk:Good Olfactory#category rename suggestions for ideas on what to do with the deleted Category:Max Schreck. I am wondering if it could either be recreated as Category:Max Schreck images, or for some other suggestion. 84user (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't myself think there would be any problem creating Category:Max Schreck images as there are plenty of such categories, eg Category:Queen (band) images and I am not aware of any precedents for deletion at cfd. Obviously a defining characteristic of an image of Max Schreck is 'Max Schreck image'. Occuli (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Related CfD

I saw your comment at a recent CfD and wanted to know if you would consider commenting at a related proposal at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Drugboxes_missing_ATC_code. ---kilbad (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I had seen it but had no immediate ideas. I have now commented. Occuli (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Number One singles

You are aware that one number-one singles subcat was kept, and two renamed, in recent CFDs? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Number-one debut singles, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 18#Number-one singles in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Number-one singles in Canada. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but as I say people need to come up with better criteria - it is not defining for a US country single to be number 1 in Latvia for instance. Perhaps just stick to Billboard charts (which I believe are global). And if OCAT is to mean anything then categorising a song by 12 different countries in which it was number 1 is OCAT. (Usually I am saying keep and the otters are united in wishing to delete. I am not anti-otter, BTW.) How are films categorised? Occuli (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 27 - Public Schools Association

I namedropped you when nomming the category for disambig rename - just a courtesy notification more than anything :) Orderinchaos 18:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Dumile/MF Doom

I just emptied the category since none of the singles in it were notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied...

Thought I'd let you know that I replied to your note on my talk page (in case you hadn't seen it). Cgingold (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe in Category:Homophobic violence

You said the category was unsourced. It was not. In the future, please don't remove categories without first verifying that the relevant subjects are indeed mentioned and well-referenced in the article. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S., it's only a request, not a personal attack. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Isn't that just an unreliable semi-mirror of wikipedia? Bulldog123 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Its article on SJ is quite different from the wikipedia one. Anyway, is there any controversy about her father being Danish? I have not grasped why you keep removing her - someone with a Danish father is evidently of danish descent. (Imdb says much the same. 'She splits her time between it and the home of her Danish building contractor father in New York' - The Guardian, definitely not a clone of anywhere.) Occuli (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ecology of... mess

I just closed a few of the Ecology of... CFD's that were nominated by User:Alan Liefting after he had depopulated the categories. I'm having a bit of a time trying to undo the mess he made. Not only did he depopulate these categories, he also went around moving articles from "Ecology of foo" to "Natural history of foo". All of this, coupled with the fact that he was spotty at best with his edit summaries, made it very difficult to figure out what he did by looking through his contribs- example. I tried to fix as much as I could find, but I'm positive I missed a lot. Feel like helping out? --Kbdank71 14:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will certainly consider this. He changed others to 'environment of' ... I have no idea whether he had a valid point. There were quite a few articles that began 'Ecology of', which I found and moved into Ecology categories (which L said had little likelihood of growth), only for Liefting to rename them and remove them again. Occuli (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I had a look - it seems to me that he didn't spend all that long on the topic and moved on, and that you got the ones I noticed. I am not much the wiser re ecology/environment/nat hist. Occuli (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking it. I'd have thought there would be more ecology/etc/etc articles and categories. --Kbdank71 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

City's tallest buildings


Uh-oh. Not the dreaded "a list is much better" argument! Prepare to have that thrown back at you (without the "in this case", of course) over and over in an attempt to make you look, well, actually, I'm not sure what the motive is. Over and over. and over and over and over... Unless, of course, it's something to do with just me, in which case, never mind.  :) --Kbdank71 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I will brace myself. I find Alansohn most amusing in fact - I found 'fly-in-chief returning to a turd' amongst his quotes. There was a very funny exchange about dunkin donuts too (which I now can't find). Occuli (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent activity in ethnicity categorisation

I had a look at Wikipedia:Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy and it says the same as always: no changes in content. i did make a small change in the notice above it, see [3].

What about {{People by nationality}} (used on 3 category pages) and {{People by ethnicity}} (used on 8 category pages)? Can we remove them from category pages as "template developed and used without community consensus"? Debresser (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it transcludes to 2 places, and he can modify it without it showing up on the watchlist of those watching the 2 main pages (he has added to the first bit). He also wrote some of the text in 2006 ... it really makes me suspicious of policy/guidelines when people quote something they added themselves (Otto does this too). You could put the templates up for deletion, or we could modify them. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The question is, would a Tfd stand a change? And how to formulate the reason for deletion? There is precedent of templates urging editors to comply with guidelines, e.g. {{blp}} Debresser (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
They do go on talk pages ... I suppose delete because WAS created them would not be seen as a sufficient reason by the WAS-unaware masses. In {{People by nationality}}, what do you think is meant by "Nationality is reflected by the occupation category"? I suppose we could take this to the template talk page. I personally think that nationality has to be determined by the balance of probabilities and in the absense of contrary evidence ... it's not usually controversial. Occuli (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what is meant by that. I don't like the formula "restricted to". That should be something like "meant for" or at most "only meant for". We don't talk like that on Wikipedia. Apart from that, do you think the basic content is correct? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As to {{People by ethnicity}}. I do not remember such a criteria, that "people must have self-identified as a particular heritage". That is mentioned in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories only about beliefs and sexual orientation. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) In Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#General it just says "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.)" Debresser (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it is in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage, and it was added by WAS 2 1/2 years ago. It is logical, but see my related comment/proposal in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage. Debresser (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:2010s American television series

You commented on this discussion which I wanted to close as a keep. However an admin deleted this one with tons of others. Don't know if you are interested in recreating and populating but if you are, have fun. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I found 3 US series in the 2010 debut category so I added them. If they don't actually debut they can be removed ... not sure why this is thought to be such a problem. Occuli (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't generally add until it actually happens; this is in line with the way we don't add episodes to the infobox episode count until they actually air. --Ckatzchatspy 10:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Something verifiably scheduled to debut in 2010 can be added, in my view, regardless of its episode count (which I agree is 0 to date). We had the same thing with car production - 2010s models, or similar ... who knows whether Ford will make it to 2010, but if not it can be changed. Occuli (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country in which you participated was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In continuation

to our worries, see User_talk:Aervanath#WAS. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed these 2? Occuli (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge/separation of different versions of the same song.

As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:The Wreckers

The author, 23prootie, very clearly asked for deletion in the CFD. If not for a couple keeps, this would have been a G7, as the other edits to the category were trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

23prootie has now switched to keep. Occuli (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are admin or not

but is the Al-Suwayda request declined ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I don't have any authority to decline anything; wait and see what others think. Occuli (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Monasteries by country name chages

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_11#Monasteries_by_country passed yesterday, thanks.

The remaining monasteries by country categories are nominated for the same name change here, if you care to vote again. Carlaude:Talk 08:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic and nationality template

If you remember our conversation and worries in User_talk:Occuli/Archive_4#Recent activity in ethnicity categorisation. Today I made some changes to Template:People by ethnicity and Template:People by nationality. Removing the most baseless parts of them. I still think we should do something more rigorous about this though. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your defending me so strongly and unexpectedly in that edit warring discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I shall no doubt be ANI'd shortly. There's a first time for everything. Occuli (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not all. You added your revert to mine in Template:People by nationality. You will be called to the same Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for conspiring with me against him in an edit war. If you don't believe it, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive101#Debresser_and_Kotniski_reported_by_William_Allen_Simpson_.28Result:_hopeless.29. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that. I think WAS was blocked. Maybe we are a cabal. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Template:People by ethnicity doesn't interest you? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am watching and think it is silly, but somewhat less silly than the nationality one. And I haven't yet put anything on its talk page; but have said somewhere else that descent is a fact, and not something to be 'self-declared'. My father and 100% of his known ancestors were Scottish: ergo I am of Scottish descent whether I like it or not. Occuli (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree with you more. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I still think these 2 templates should be Tfd'ed. Do you think that is a good idea? Debresser (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Color blind people

Good to know that at least some people get the joke. Otto4711 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose some haven't been paying attention. 'Delete per Alansohn' does produce a certain frisson. Occuli (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Video albums cfd

Looks like Clyd's bot is having issues with special characters so there are about 5 renames or deletions that are still pending. I posted on his talk page but no response yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that is indeed a common thread between the unmoved categories. Occuli (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the note, I don't know whether to <sigh> or <chuckle>. Maybe both. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

No doubt the amusement will continue unabated. Occuli (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Anybody else thinks the guy might have problems? Debresser (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
He seems suspiciously quiet. Occuli (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


I saw recently that you edited my subpage. DON'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It states quite clearly on my userpage that others are NOT, I repeat NOT allowed to edit my subpages. If you do it again, I'll edit and/or delete a page YOU like.

--TheGrandAmanin (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit any page in Wikipedia. Someone editing one of your subpages will not necessarily look at your user page. You are free to edit any pages, whether I like them or not. Occuli (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the good pastor trying to get wily?

  • ?. I suppose we should be on the lookout for better attempts at disguising his editing style. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 24#Various converts

Please read and comment on my support for and proposed changes to the CfD. Carlaude:Talk 12:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Text from article deleted multiple times (wikilinks omitted):

"Wayne William Scott is an Ordained Minister of the United Methodist Church, currently serving as a Pastor.

"Wayne was born 20 October 1961 in Parma, Ohio, U.S.A. He is twice a great-grandson of clergy, as well as a great-great-grandson of clergy. Wayne is a graduate of Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, with a B.A. in Social Service. His M.Div. degree is from the United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio.

"Rev. Scott in a Member in Full Connection of the East Ohio Annual Conference of the U.M. Church. He was received as a Probationary Member of the same and ordained a Deacon in 1987 by Bishop James Samuel Thomas. Wayne was ordained an Elder in 1991 by Bishop Edwin Charles Boulton.

"Rev. Scott is a well known Pastor. He served as an Associate Pastor of the First U.M.C., Connersville, Indiana, 1986-89 while in seminary. He was then appointed to the Lake Brady U.M.C., 1989-93. He was Pastor of the Faith U.M.C., Cambridge, Ohio, 1993-2000. He was appointed the first fulltime Pastor of the Mt. Pleasant U.M.C., Carrollton, Ohio."

Feel free to delete after you read it. (I wish I had a James Bond-esque "this message will self-destruct" feature. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Seville Lib

  • User:Seville Lib? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I am convinced it it PW. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Me too, although the name is uncharacteristically creative. You did well to spot this one (+ the anon i.p.). Occuli (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Although if we look at Westfield Center, Ohio, we can see Seville, Ohio just on the right, within which might well be a library. I wonder what i.p. the library might use. Occuli (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Valley Forge (another sock) is a school in Parma Ohio. PW was brought up in Parma Ohio (see above). Occuli (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Was this the fatal edit? He must think you have magical powers. Occuli (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
          • It was indeed the one that first caught my attention. I try to trawl through the new category creations every once in awhile, though, so I may have seen Category:Fijian Methodist clergy and started to wonder. Not very smart when creating that is his first ever edit, but I suppose the library would have limited Internet usage times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I came across this which is interesting (3/4 of the edits are in category space). Compare it with EstherLois, down to a modest 50% (and the other 50% adding articles to cats, no doubt). (I was wondering if the library might be different from the 70.*.* range, thus defying checkuser.) I've created another test page which catches 3 of the last few - seville, leroy and an ip on 4 Aug (but not the ip which made 1 edit yesterday before you squashed it, and not west bishop). Occuli (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


I agree with your edit summary, "this version is worse than it was yesterday." I don't have time to work on this right now, and want to avoid anything that would look like biting the new editor.

I reverted once to your last version. I want to look through the other editor's changes carefully before doing so again. However, I wouldn't have a problem with your reverting it or substantially editing it in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The new editor has only edited that article, which suggests partiality (source 1 had been changed to a bizarre video link). Anyway I've returned it to the version of 2 days ago. Occuli (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

help for tagging large amounts of categories

For Categories for discussion there is a place to request for help to tag large amounts of categories: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion - By putting a request for tagging categories here, I have completed the requirement to have daughter categories tagged. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wine category

Rather than delete the category as empty, I have listed the matter for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Wines. Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is indeed the optimal solution. Occuli (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets discuss your revert of my edit

  • That a cfd is ongoing does not mean that we can not continue to build and correct wikipedia? does it?
  • Or are you saying that my edit was correct, BUT since the cfd is on I should wait until it is over?
  • Here come a number of the pages in the category and my arguing that they are not specific wines, please comment one by one and explain how you can consider them to be specific:
  • Alban wine: This is a page similar to Bordeaux wine, it is about a region, not a specific wine. Some quotes that confirms this that it is wine from an area, not a singular wine, "the area's wine", see the ref [4] "Columella praises these regions, as well. "For there is no doubt that, of all the vines that the earth sustains, those of the Massic, Surrentine, Alban, and Caecuban lands hold first place in the excellence of their wine" (De Re Rustica, III.8.5). "
  • Caecuban wine same, a quote, "came from a small territory"
  • Chian wine, same, quote "is wine from the Greek island of Chios."
  • Conditum Paradoxum, quotes "Conditum Paradoxum is a spiced wine of Ancient Rome"
  • Cretan wine, quote "Cretan wine is wine from the Greek island of Crete"
  • Falernian wine, quote "were three vineyards (or appellations) recognized by Romans"

Do I need to go on? Please revert your revert of my edit. --Stefan talk 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Look: 'Fooian boos' is always a subcat of 'Boos', so your edit is wrong. WP:Wine seem to have got hold of the idea that 'X is a wine' is never true. This leads to all 'fooian wines' categories being empty. If you think Alban wine is not a wine then remove it from Category:Ancient wines (from the examples above I think they are all wines except for the last one, which seems to be saying a wine is a vineyard). I did remove several non-wines myself (a wedding, an article about wine) - I must say I think you (wine project) have grasped the wrong end of a stick very firmly. If I look at Water, I find it categorised under 'Liquids': people don't quibble endlessly about whether it is singular or not. Look at it:Categoria:Vino; the Italians seem to find no difficulty with Vini, there is the admirably comprehensible it:Categoria:Vini italiani per regione, within which I find it:Categoria:Vini del Chianti. it:Retsina is categorised as a wine, and there is even a picture of some in a bottle. Occuli (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Falernian wine in fact says "Falernian wine was produced from Aglianico grapes[1] on the slopes ... " so it is a wine, not a vineyard or 3. Occuli (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Ancient wines could be called Category:Ancient wine! If you think that it is wrongly named that is OK, I will move it to Category:Wine and rename it later when I have more time to do the many edits required! Are you ok with that? --Stefan talk 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There is only one category for liquids, Category:Liquid does not exists, if your argument is that there should be only one then we are much more in agreement! (although I think wine would be better than wines) The biggest issue is that we have 2 different categories for wine Category:Wine and Category:Wines, so I'm trying to clean up thngs that are in the wrong category. Alban wine is a wine and should be categories in the Wine category, now it is in the Wines category, Alban wine is not a specific wine, it is a wine from a region. The quote I gave for Falernian wine was maybe not the best, yours is better, but that quote also states very clearly that it is NOT a specific wine to be classified under the wines category, it is wine from a specific type of grapes from a specific place. As for retsina see this link (wonder if I can link to shopping sites??) it clearly shows that retsina is of many labels, i.e. it is not like a specific 'opera', it is a type of 'opera' and should therefore be classified under wine, not wines? --Stefan talk 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
13 days, no comment? CfD closed! unless you reply here in 1 day I will redo my edits! --Stefan talk 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello Occuli, I noticed that you have lately taken a large interest in the categorization of wine-related articles, and the associated category system. Since I can't really recall having previously seen your username around wine-related articles or the project WP:WINE, I naturally got somewhat curious about the focus of your Wikipedia activities and interests, any project memberships, and so on. However, I notice that you don't have a Wikipedia:User page, so I would just like to ask if you have considered creating one with at least some of this type of information? While entirely voluntary, in my experience, this type of information sometimes helps other editors to understand with whom they are discussing. When e.g. editors have opinion about terminology in other languages, the information in WP:Babel is sometimes helpful to understand which type of sources they base their opinions on. Again - absolutely not mandatory, but typically useful as a service to the community to have. Cheers, Tomas e (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)