User talk:RevelationDirect/Archive 2021

Organized labour project

Thank you for earlier joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's userspace without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the 18 May 1811 Medal has been nominated for listification

See Category:Government ministries of Uruguay (Q21328510). List already exists. Just need to be created in this wiki. --Onwa (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up under original CFD notice at User talk:Onwa#Category:Recipients of the 18 May 1811 Medal has been nominated for listification. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated explorers

Based upon your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Category:Murdered explorers, I've carefully moved over only those that appear to have been assassinated. Please prune any that you don't think belong.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they seek him here, they seek him where?

pdfpdf is as elusive as... whereveryour imagination might take you. Somewhere between buckleys and elsewhere - hahah, I get very strange emails at odd times that dont make sense, I suspect he is enjoying retirement... JarrahTree 02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! The emails make perfect sense!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see what I mean... JarrahTree 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:AOSM

Thanks for the heads up. I can't fault the logic of your proposal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILITY in the CFD for CATEGORY:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent

Hi, I’d like to ask that you strike the words: “no matter how long the reply my !vote receives below... -” per WP:RUC because this appears to be an attempt to WP:BAIT me into posting a WP:WALLOFTEXT, which would be a violation of civility rules itself (I will note that none of my replies in that thread are even that long by discussion standards). As you can see in the thread I didn’t take the bait and posted a reply only three times the length of your one sentence comment. On a related note I have also asked two other commenters in that thread to remove their uncivil comments as well (link). Thanks for your cooperation.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striken with my apologies. @Carlossuarez46: That's a fair request and I appreciate you taking me aside on my talk page rather than escalating there. My intent was to discourage rather than bait and to have a playful tone. This isn't a fake "sorry if I offended you" apology though; it was uncivil. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up so quickly. However I do have to apologize for a mistake I made myself, that is forgetting to sign my comment. In case you thought you were addressing user:Carlossuarez46, that’s not the case.—-Prisencolin (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Victorians of the Year Category

Your recently proposed the above sub-titular category for listification and deletion. This debate was closed before I had a chance to respond. Based on the seniority of the award and the argument you used, it is clear that no award category can survive OC:Award (a redrafting which I strongly disagreed with when it was modified nearly a decade ago). Your rationale means that even a category for nobel laureates falls foul of OCAWARD. And all award categories should be removed. OC:Award was developed in its current fashion because editors couldn't handle a lengthy list of categories for awards associated with biographical articles. It flies in the face of Wikipedia policies that permit templates, lists and categories to coexist and pre-existing WP:ODM policies and category scheme for orders, decorations and medals. The solution now, as it was 10 years ago, was for the technical folk to develop functionality for collapsible nested categories. I did suggest this back then but it has gone nowhere. You have progressively been rolling back 100s of hours of work that I spent in categorising ODM recipients. I appreciate that you have been listifying them instead. Whilst I have not intervened in the majority of these because I know that there will be no support from the usual reviewers of these categorisation debates. On this occasion though, the award is significantly more important than you give it credit for and some of the supporting arguments you raised appear illogical. I was about to post the following to the debate but I see it has already been closed off.

clearly not a case of WP:OCAWARD, if one understands the pecking order of awards in Australia. The above nomination down-plays the significance of this award. The Victorian of the Year, Young Victorian of the Year and Senior Victorian of the Year awards are the pre-eminent annual awards for Victoria and have counter-parts in the other seven Australian states and territories. As far as awards go in Australia, they are a big deal. For example this is the most senior of Jesse Martin's four awards. All recipients are notable per WP:ANYBIO but for the majority no one has taken on the task of raising the articles yet. Arguing establishment of non-notability by a lack of Wikipedia articles is circular logic and is not an accepted criteria for considering WP:BIO. The reality is that at a minimum, they will have had associated stories published in the major Victorian newspapers and broadcast on the major TV stations. They are likely to receive further intermittent media coverage during the following year associated with speaking engagements as part of their 'tour of duty' as the Young Victorian of the Year. This is in addition to the likelihood that there will be further coverage (in at least local media) of their involvement in the activities that then led to their being recognised by the award. By the logic of the nomination, there should be no category for Nobel laureates either and we might as well abandon any award categories (which I am sure would suit some editors just fine). Merit awards by their very nature recognise people who have done noteworthy/meritorious things. The things they have done are always going to take up a larger volume of their Wikipedia articles when it is well balanced. The award itself is only ever going to get a passing mention in the Wikipedia article unless there is something significant about the circumstance of the award decision/conferral that are worthy of discussing in greater detail.

To be clear, I appreciate you are acting in good faith. Whilst I fundamentally disagree with the change to OC:Award, in this instance I think that the category is permissible under OC:Award. If it is not, then I will take that as confirmation that in practice no award category is regarded as permissible. Regards, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out and assuming good faith, even though I've clearly frustrated you. I appreciate that. Here is an overly long reply:

Categories, Lists, & Templates: Different navigational tools in Wikipedia have different inclusion criteria: for articles it's notability (WP:N/WP:LISTN), for categories it's definingness (WP:DEFINING/WP:OCAWARD), while Templates are for narrow, closely related topics (WP:NAVBOX). WP:CLN forbids deleting one navigational tool because others exist but it doesn't go the other way: just because, say, a category exists doesn't mean you can create a list or template in violation of the relevant guidelines. I need to work on improving the wording of my nominations because the causality I mean to convey is that "this category is not allowed, I want to keep the information, and this same info is allowed in a list." (I do not mean "I created the list therefore the category is no longer allowed [sic]".)
All or Nothing: I don't accept that we either keep all award categories or get rid of them all. Nobel Prizes, BAFTAs, Olympic medals, Grammies, and the Order of Australia (including Jesse Martin) are all clearly defining. I do think a majority of award cats are non-definging, especially when I look at the 35 at the bottom of the Emperor Akihito article because I see prominent awards as defining when they magnify fame and non-defining when they just reflect pre-existing fame. (Or, in the case of less prominent awards, the catch-22 I described.)
Technical Changes: I really like your idea about nested categories. I'm picturing "Awards+" showing at the bottom of the article and, if you click the plus sign, it expands and you see all the awards. Unfortunately, the Foundation's actual technical change has been that most readers never see the categories or navboxes at all because they are not displayed on the mobile version which I disagree with emphatically. (This lengthy off Wikipedia article comparing formats mentions the loss of Navboxes but not the loss of categories.) Whether my deletion of categories is warranted or not, the only places mobile readers can navigate now is through stand-alone lists, collapsible lists, See also sections and other links within articles.

@AusTerrapin: I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to contribute the CFD discussion about Young Victorians; that's crumby. We may have to respectfully disagree on the cats but, given that readers increasingly won't see them anyway as they switch to mobile, I'm hoping you share my enthusiasm for having award recipients listed in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Orange Order

Hello, RevelationDirect,

Before you tag a category for deletion, please make sure it is empty. If you could remove all of the categorized pages, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I manually emptied the category to facilitate the G4 speedy deletion, as requested. (FYI, I believe some of the editors in CFD have scripts to do that but, given how small this category was, purging it manually was easy enough.)RevelationDirect (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect, Yes, I use Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot which can empty a category in 3 clicks. Started using it on Commons but it is very helpful for enwiki as well. (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original CFD discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 24#Category:Members of the Orange Order

George A. Malcolm

While simple membership in Acacia wouldn't qualify him for the Acacia category, he was one of the founders. Founders and National presidents seem to make sense in a Fraternity Category. Can you please point me to a rule in this regard?Naraht (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Usually we WP:SEPARATE biography articles into separate categories, but there are exceptions with small organizations. If there are 5 or so founders, the best solution would be to create an Acacia subcategory of Category:College fraternity founders. For now I added Mr. Malcom back to the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I went through Category:College fraternity founders and Category:College sorority founders and created subcats for any that had more than one. Perhaps that was creating categories that were too small, I won't argue with an effort to upmerge the smaller. The way that I read WP:SEPARATE, it seems to give guidance on placing non-biographical articles in biographical categories, not biographical articles into non-biographical categories.Naraht (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am so mad

I am so mad at the turning of Wikipedia over to radical nationalists and presentists who have no respect for the reality of the past. That is my only reaction to the closing of my nominations on Ukraine when it did not exist closing as keep. Even more frustrating is the overbearing adminstrator who then used this to overturn clearly closed as merge nominations. This is destroying all I work for to improve Wikipedia and it is very, very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: It certainly seems redundant to me that the Colosseum is categorized under both the historically accurate Category:80s establishments in the Roman Empire as well as the retroactive Category:1st-century establishments in Italy. This discussion has frustrated you much more deeply than me though since you wrote the noms, so take some time to care for yourself. I plan to continue to build the categories that make sense to us, as I avert my eyes to the parallel ones that don't. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking the next thing to go after is pre-1811 establishments in Mexico, since New Spain is a much better name for the time period. These have the extra oddity that Category:1809 establishments in Alta California is a subsection of Category:1809 establishments in Mexico, which really makes no sense at all. I just read some from both the Mexico and Name of Mexico article. The latter has this paragraph "As far back as 1590, the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum showed that the northern part of the New World was known as "America Mexicana" (Mexican America), as Mexico City was the seat for the New Spain viceroyalty. New Spain is mistaken as the old name for Mexico, rather than the name of a large expanse of land which covered much of North America and included the Caribbean and the Philippines. Since New Spain was not actually a state or a contiguous piece of land, in modern times it would have been a jurisdiction under the command of the authorities in modern Mexico City. Under the Spaniards, Mexico was both the name of the capital and its sphere of influence, most of which exists as Greater Mexico City and the State of Mexico. Some parts of Puebla, Morelos and Hidalgo were also part of Spanish-era Mexico." which tells us pre-1821 Mexico referred to a limited area that is slightly larger than the modern state of Mexico State plus the DF in Mexico. "New Mexico" got its name because the term referred to an area not at all near the size of hte modern nation state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Sport Hall of Fame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]