Please click the "new section" tab above to add a new message below.
If you are a registered user and I left a message on your talk page, please reply there to keep the conversation together. If I fail to respond within a few days, please poke me on this page. –
Fayenatic(talk)21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)reply
This user talk page might be
watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Hey, sorry
this took so long to close, you mentioned you might be willing to help with manually adding cats to some of the articles in it. If you still want to, it's listed at
WP:CFDWM (if not, don't worry about it and it will get dealt with). Thanks! Peace,
delldot∇.04:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Hey, this is good: Cydebot removed the CFD templates from all the Keep or No consensus cases. How did it know to do that? Is that automated in an astonishingly clever way, or did somebody help me out by listing them? –
FayenaticLondon14:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for doing that, and for populating it. I've added another (in fact the second of the two I was planning to add – you got the first).
Ericoides (
talk)
20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Can I remind you of the rules against undiscussed moves that are likely to be controversial? These days this term is only likely to be found as a subject in art, so your move was un-necessary. No I have to go to the trouble of getting it reverted.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)reply
What's your evidence for that assertion, please? On the contrary, a lot of the incoming links to
adoration of the Magi are about the Gospel episode. I was going to disambiguate the ones that are explicitly about art, and only then start a RM discussion at
talk:Biblical Magi suggesting a move. I don't think I have yet done anything controversial or that would be difficult to undo, and I was not going to do so without discussion. –
FayenaticLondon22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you'll find those links all come from articles also using the Christmas or Gospel episodes templates. Moving Biblical Magi would certainly be unwarranted. A google search on the term shows
pretty clearly it is only really used in art history now. The mere fact that I disagree with your move obviously makes it controversial. The sole Gospel to describe the event says just " On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (which I have now added in full to the article) so I don't really see what else there is to say, as opposed to other issues around the magi, which are covered at that article. Note that
The Visit of the Magi to Jesus already redirects to
Biblical Magi - it might be better to use that in the Gospel template.
Visit of the Magi is I would think the most typical name for the episode in normal religious literature, producing a
totally different sort of result on a google search. I'll create that as a redirect to BM.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I changed the templates yesterday, to use the page/redirect
Adoration of the Magi in art. Bother, another editor reverted the Christmas one, and also removed the link to
Biblical Magi; I have just reinstated it, and we will have to wait for the transcluded links to be updated again. I also found that
The Adoration of the Magi was also a redirect to the art page, and that does make sense as "the" should only be linked as part of the title to an artwork.
It's currently the
Biblical magi article which lists depictions other than paintings. Even if that section was moved across, I think references to drama, such as
Mystery play and
Middlebush Reformed Church, should be linked to the main (Biblical Magi) article, as their subject is the gospel incident. Neighbouring links on those pages to other incidents such as "
crucifixion of Jesus" are linked to the articles on the events rather than a page on art. Do you agree? if so I will disambiguate those to use your redirect
visit of the Magi.
Book of hours & examples of the same should perhaps use the art page. –
FayenaticLondon07:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
OK, I 'll leave that one because the word "adoration" fits what follows, but will change the church article (linked above) to the main article rather than the art page. I do accept your conclusion above about not renaming the main article to "Adoration…" However, "Biblical Magi" remains an unsatisfactory title, as the article is about an event rather than a group or category of people. I see from the talk page that various renames have failed in the past. Do you think it is worth proposing a move to "Visit of the Magi"? –
FayenaticLondon18:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
No, you have just moved it.
Biblical magi is about 3 people, and a string of events, including
Journey of the Magi, Visit of the Magi,
Dream of the Magi (all of these are different subjects in art), & a load of cultural refs. Really, what is wrong with you? Please stop fiddling for the sake of it & just leave things alone.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, I have not moved
Biblical Magi. I'm sorry for upsetting you, I did not realise that this was
solely your encyclopedia.
I was about to save a revised version of my comment above but you replied before I did so.
Thinking that I had your consent, I changed
Mystery play and other church drama articles (such as the one linked above) to the main article rather than the art page. IMHO this is not "fiddling for the sake of it" but disambiguation.
Although you make a fair point that "Adoration of the Magi" is used chiefly in art, I do not accept that it is used exclusively in that context. As it is the traditional term, especially for liturgical denominations, I fear that various articles will be changed back by well-meaning editors to the old link in order to match neighbouring references e.g.
Adoration of the Shepherds.
Nevertheless, I accept for now that it is not worth raising a proposal to re-link all art pages to
Adoration of the Magi in art and to use
Adoration of the Magi for, or as a redirect to, the main article.
Anyway, I have finished the cleanup that I was aiming to do. I'm disappointed to have lost your respect for now. I hope we will have the opportunity to collaborate more fruitfully in future. –
FayenaticLondon21:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I meant "mystery play". What on earth are "liturgical denominations" in this context? I doubt many links will get changed back. I'm sorry if I was testy, but this is a lot of effort for a very small gain.
Johnbod (
talk)
22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I was thinking of Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans... I do not know how many still use the term "Adoration of the Magi" when referring to this gospel episode, but it clearly includes some Wikipedians.
In the end you were right about the scale of the gain. When I first saw the incoming links I was expecting to find more that were incorrectly linked to the art page. Nevertheless I think I have improved the linking on some important pages. –
FayenaticLondon22:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)reply
The Year of Living Dangerously with American Actresses Playing Male Roles
Thanks for your close of
Category:American actresses and my sincere hope that this issue is finally put to bed. I did notice your obiter dictum regarding the film The Year of Living Dangerously, a personal favorite. While my persistent argument across the actress categories had been that the real world distinguishes between male and female performers -- as evidenced in books, magazines and newspapers and in awards categories -- the other argument for keeping actress categories has been that men usually play male roles and women female roles. That may well be overwhelmingly true, but it's never been clear to me why this is relevant. The category seems clearly to me to be intended to include female thespians, regardless of the sex of the roles (or a role) that they might play.
Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously is a woman who played a role as a man, which would make her an American actress as long as the defining characteristic is the sex of the person playing the role, not the sex of the role. Nor does it appear that Linda Hunt makes her career entirely or mostly playing male roles. There might be justification for a category of men who play female roles and vice versa, but I'm still not sure that this has any effect on any of the actress by nationality categories. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as closing admin.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)reply
As Hunt won a Best Actress award for playing a male role, I threw it in as an interesting factoid. I didn't mean to be expressing an opinion, as I was closing. Since you ask, the attention given to Hunt's performance IMHO makes it an exception that proves the rule. Some editors think the rule is relevant, others don't. In assessing consensus, I found that editors' conclusions were 2:1 in favour of Keeping, and with strong enough arguments on their side to close that way.
It would have dealt with some of the opposition if the discussion on the head category had settled on "female actors". However, "Actresses by nationality" is back for now. Given that, it would have needed very persuasive reasons to diverge from that pattern, and most participants at this CfD !voted in line with it. –
FayenaticLondon17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I strongly feel that Category:Algonquian personal names should NOT have been closed as a delete / listify. There were hardly any delete votes, the few there were simply said "delete" without even bothering to formulate a cohesive argument, and very cohesive arguments were put forth to KEEP, but these were not responded to, addressed, or even replied to by those voting delete. I view this as a LINGUISTIC category, it should not be seen as an ethnic category or a biographical category. Attitudes like this are exactly why extinct or near-extinct languages end up disappearing completely, when what little information on the sounds of the languages there is, cannot even be collected in one place because someone "doesn't like it".
Til Eulenspiegel /
talk/
13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The Delete votes cited
WP:OVERCAT, an editing guideline, in particular
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES which applies directly to the case and which I find persuasive. Since you wrote your note above, I have added a link to this guideline within my closure at the CfD.
I do a lot of work on articles about human names, as a participant in
WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, but the articles in this category are not about names; they are about people. Loanwords, people/names with a shared derivation, and placenames with a shared derivation are IMHO valid encyclopedic info which should be kept in Wikipedia, but as lists rather than categories. Lists are better than categories for linguistic analysis anyway, as they can be analysed into whatever sections might be helpful – in this case, perhaps the various peoples within
Category:Algonquian peoples.
Yes, I recognised that, hence my comment about "different names and purposes". The point that I intended to make was that it was incorrect for another editor to conclude that "since we do not seem to [have
Category:Algonquian people], we need to retain the existing category and rename it." That would be incorrect because of the
WP:SUBCAT rule, since the biographies are already in sub-cats of
Category:Algonquian peoples – a point that you made yourself later on. –
FayenaticLondon19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Actress categories
Since you are the person who closed the CfD on
Category:American actresses to keep, I thought you might be a person to tell about this. Some editors have tried to accuse some of the editors involved in adding to actress categories of being engaged in "sexist editing". This seems uncalled for intimidation of editors and really makes no sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Bad decision, considering that the film and actors project were only alerted about this a few hours ago. That's hardly a consensus. I founded WP:Actors and I find it ridiculous that we need to call them "male actors". We decided against "female actors" in favour of actresses, so if we're going to adopt that that we simply go for the old male equivalent. Ridiculous. Several of the most active editors on each project agree and you've not allowed time for people really involved with actor articles to comment. I suspect this will be reopened as a CFD later in the month.♦
Dr. ☠ Blofeld10:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Article alerts for CfDs are automated using the WikiProject links on category talk pages. The CFD was on Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts from January 5 onwards, as well as
Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article alerts and the one for United States. It had already attracted considerable interest, so there was no apparent need to post individual messages to WikiProjects to attract further comments. I had considered the discussion the night before, and still felt in the morning that the outcome was clear-cut, so I closed it despite the midnight talk-page message to WP Film. I will repeat this message at
WT:FILM. –
FayenaticLondon18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
So it does. Thank you; live and learn. I had seen redirects in the left-hand column of the Working page before, apparently surviving as blue links, so I thought that Cydebot would skip the redirects when it came to deletion. I guess the blue links that I saw must all have been re-created by other editors promptly after deletion.
Presumably it doesn't matter whether we undelete the history or not? When I want a redirect, I normally do so, and then add the redirect template around the name of the new category within the CFD template. –
FayenaticLondon21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi BHG, thanks very much for spotting and fixing that. Yes, I have a recurring intermittent problem with the page disappearing on Preview/Save since "upgrading" to Win7 & IE9; I raised it at the tech village pump page, but nobody responded. It's usually just the section that I lose, but I'll have to watch out for the whole page disappearing like that. –
FayenaticLondon14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
No prob. Things sometimes go awry.
I'm surprised tho to hear that you are using Internet Exploder. Have you considered switching?
I use either
Firefox most of the time and sometimes
Chrome, and used to use
Opera. None of that sort of prob with any of them. I know that IE has improved a bit in the last few years, but it has tended to be way behind the others in functionality and speed. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
This is at work. Company policy! IE has been acceptable on speed, although I resort to a few tricks e.g. loading large pages on another tab in the background; and I like its flexibility with auto-filling edit summaries. I use Firefox at home for editing, as it also auto-fills edit summaries, but unlike IE I don't think it allows me to delete those that I don't want to re-use. –
FayenaticLondon16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Poor you; I hate when a company policy requires workers to use one particular tool rather than an equally good alternative which they may prefer.
I find that Firefox does allow me to delete edit summaries I don't want to re-use, tho only after I have used them, and provided I have no other edit page open at the same time. So on pages like
WP:CFD/W which I edit a lot, I occasionally take a bit of time to purge them. Wish there was a better way of controlling it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the invitation. I'm currently expecting to scale back my time working on the encyclopedia because of other commitments. This project is something that I would wish to support in principle, but sounds as if it could call for quite intensive attention, and I am not able to put myself forward for that at the moment. Regrets and best wishes –
FayenaticLondon13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Bible related articles that are mainly copies of old encyclopedias
They can drive you nuts. I once didn't realise that has happened and put some citations tags on material I was dubious about, and had them promptly removed as I was old it was cited from one of the century old encyclopedias we use. I gave up - it's still an article almost entirely copied from an obsolete source. We could use a working party to gradually rewrite such articles. Oh, I also tried to find some sources establishing notability for that church but failed.
Dougweller (
talk)
23:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I've removed all the articles from
Category:Rainbow Codes (which you closed the CFD on) - adding the articles to the military equipment category where necessary. One article -
Black Prince (rocket) wasn't specifically military so hasn't been placed in that category. The category still contains redirects. Is it ok for the cat to be db-g6'ed now ?
DexDor (
talk)
06:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi, I'd forgotten why I had your talk page on my watchlist, and since I recently found that archive boxes had a search function, I added one for you; hope you like it, or at least don't mind!
There was already a clear consensus by the time I looked on that day, so I didn't bother adding anything there. Although I responded last time, TBH this is not an aspect of Wikipedia that I'd choose to spend time on. Cheers –
FayenaticLondon15:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)reply
My name is Angus Robertson. I have recently rejoined Cork Gully and Stephen Cork, the Managing Partner has asked me if we can agree a set of words which is acceptable to you regarding the entry in Wikipedia of the acquisition of Cork Gully from PwC.
If you would like to discuss this I can be reached on 020 7268 2150 or via email at angusrobertson@corkgully.com
Thanks for disclosing your interest. Can we discuss the matter openly on the discussion page for the article,
Talk:Cork Gully? Click "New section" at the top of that page to start a new section. –
FayenaticLondon11:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for you questioning the category issue - please do not touch - trying to cope with a complexity of issues re the australian grain industry in general and the lack of adequate articles - thanks anyways - cheers
sats09:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Oncolytic virus
Hi Fayenatic, I have done lots of work to improve the
Oncolytic virus article, do you think you could review it if you have time? I took a lot of unnecessary details and stub articles and made
Oncolytic herpes virus and
oncolytic adenovirus out of them. Also many thanks for your copy-editing on
virotherapy, all help is much appreciated as I seem to be the only person making any significant developments on these pages!
Viraltonic (
talk)
11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks and well done for your hard work! I tidied up some minor formatting points.
There is not much interest in the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIGVIR, but technical requirements for sourcing indicate that
RIGVIR as it stands may have to be deleted. However, as it is an active prescription medicine in Latvia, I believe that the sources are probably sufficent to cover it briefly within another article. Perhaps it should be mentioned in
Oncolytic virus. Alternatively, what do you think about rescuing the page by moving it to
Naturally occurring oncolytic viruses, removing the unsourced content, and adding in summaries of Reovirus and Senecavirus? If that strikes you as a sensible thing to do, we should propose it in the deletion discussion. –
FayenaticLondon18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see it is still mentioned in
Virotherapy. Well, let's add sources.
I was thinking earlier that I should make a
Naturally oncolytic viruses page, it probably would be a good place to put the Rigvir article. I have held back editing Rigvir while I do a bit of research on it, it is definitely worth a mention somewhere, but with less promotional language, and it needs to be made clear it has only had limited controlled testing. I will begin making changes as you suggest soon.
Virotherapy still needs some work with reliable citations, will get onto that soon. Thanks!
Viraltonic (
talk)
18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Also, do you think there is scope for
Onyx-015 ever to be a separate article? If not, you ought to have used the Move (from the drop-down at the top right), as doing it by copy-paste is disapproved. As an admin, I can fix it by merging the page history. –
FayenaticLondon18:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)reply
No problem; I have merged the page histories now. Thanks for the other replies; I've set up the category. If RIGVIR gets deleted and later you want a copy for reference, just ask. –
FayenaticLondon17:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Hey again, I have another request for your opinion, not my work this time.
Oncolytic adenovirus has just been completely changed without any discussion on the talk page. The new article, while technically all very accurate and well sourced, might be too technical for a general audience, it reads like a scientific review rather than an encyclopedia. It also omits much of the previous information regarding clinical development and approved medicines. I have asked the author
Lemms13 if they're finished yet and am awaiting a response. I don't think this article as it stands will be very useful to a layperson seeking more information. I will start a discussion at
Talk:Oncolytic_adenovirus.
Viraltonic (
talk)
22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The collection of five albums is not notable. Inherently notable or not, information from this article is best served in
Faye Wong discography. I think it should be deleted without sending it to AFD, i.e. "proposed deletion". Thoughts? --
George Ho (
talk)
03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that the box set is not notable and should not remain as a separate article. However, it has a little info that might be worth adding to the discography, e.g. that the bonus discs were included. In that case, the old page should be redirected to the discography rather than deleted. –
FayenaticLondon08:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
I want to immediately merge these articles, but I don't have confidence yet. Still, I think it would help improve the quality. Thoughts? --
George Ho (
talk)
04:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
There is certainly an overlap in the content, and they are in the same categories. I don't know of any precedents for merging articles like this, but it could be an improvement. If you do it, I suggest moving one of the articles to the new page name, and then merging in the content from the other. –
FayenaticLondon08:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Fayenetic, for your edit in
Rajan Pillai saying "refs should be placed immediately after punctuation, on the same line to avoid extra spaces", I checked the guidelines for punctuation and footnotes (
MOS:PUNCTFOOT). I did not see anything that said refs should be "on the same line". Do let me know how my citation style was going against the MOS or was creating extra spaces.
Jay (
talk)
08:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi, pardon me if that seemed cheeky; I hadn't realised you were a longstanding editor when I left the summary.
In principle, I do like the way you were putting refs on the next line, as it makes it easier to read the text while editing. However, the wiki software interprets the newline in the same way as a space, i.e. it displays a space between the text and the citation number. Likewise, it displays spaces between citations if the raw text has successive citations on separate lines.
The MOS page that you linked above says "immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation (see exceptions below), with no intervening space."
I conclude that "immediately" rules out inserting a line break.
I think I previously tried editing in the same pattern as you did there, but went back to entering citations as contiguous text to avoid those extra spaces being displayed. –
FayenaticLondon14:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I see what you are saying. I compared the rendering of the two versions of the page - with and without the line break - and I see the extra spaces. But I think it looks neater with the space. I would like to understand the purpose of the no intervening space rule, and have started a
discussion on MOS:PUNCTFOOT.
Jay (
talk)
05:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
By the way, well done on the article. It occurred to me ages ago that the subject was sufficiently notable. Have you submitted it for DYK? –
FayenaticLondon19:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)reply
The works programme not only brought the houses up to the Decent Homes Standard, but achieved marked improvements in energy efficiency as well as security, landscaping and visual enhancements.[7] Residents celebrated completion of the regeneration in October 2012.[8]
The main citation in support of notability is the Inside Housing piece, which majors on energy efficiency and mentions the other improvements, so I thought so. But
it's not my article, so change it if you think better. –
FayenaticLondon11:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Of course I must have meant something else - Category:Ancient Egyptian language is an English phrase, not Italian. Anyway, that edit dates back to nearly one year ago, and now I can't find the corresponding Italian category.
Ary29 (
talk)
12:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)reply
just noting that lower-casing "environment regions of British Columbia" without the "Ministry" in it would confuse things as a title, as it implies ecoregions and biogeographic zones and such.
Skookum1 (
talk)
04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)reply
LOL we're almost back to where we started....I originally titled that "Chilcotin District" and that wound up having someone speedy that cat to that title, which is very problematic for a catname because of the capital 'C'...I've just gone through a series of CfDs this last month over name change first to "Chilcotin (region)", which was resolved by a page change to "Chilcotin region" and see
User_talk:Good_Olfactory#speedying Chilcotin..... where I broached the subject of changing the cat to
Category:Chilcotin to match
Category:Okanagan and
Category:Cariboo and others of that kind. The "country" appendage is very common and citable, the capital-C version is used but not as easy to cite....I'd never updated the listings on the template.....LOL here we go again.....
Skookum1 (
talk)
08:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Hm, appears I was wrong about the citability of capital-C "Country", seems like
it's more widespread now than when I looked a few years ago....there are way more for "region" but I haven't culled the wikiclones out of that. Major sites like BC Tourism and britishcolumbia.com and others are using it that way; ah, tradition, nice to see it still alive.....other parts of BC are getting "rebranded" all the time....
Skookum1 (
talk)
10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I found the article
about copyrights, but I could not read the whole article. I was just able to find the identity of the writer. Can you help me add info about copyrights of the song? --
George Ho (
talk)
04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Cheers, I think I've finished that satisfactorily. I looked briefly at the head categories of
Water heating but it didn't strike me as useful to separate it from domestic heating generally. –
FayenaticLondon14:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)reply
You objected to the article only being about the United States. Well, it is. And since the term is used in U.S. law, I think that gives us the right to make it all about the United States. I wouldn't know the first thing about writing about how it works in other countries, and I'm finding a ton of information about the United States.—
Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Would you be interested in looking at the article to see how I've done? Just to clarify, a look at the history shows I added nearly all the content of any consequence. Others corrected Wlinks and did other minor fixes, but the rest of it is mine.—
Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I've just removed a couple of "religious leaders" categories from people who were previously justifiably labelled as "religious ministers". Is there a category (/group of categories) that these non-leader ministers fit into? Thanks in advance,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
If they are categorised as lay preachers, their preaching should have been notable enough to be defining, so they probably did quite a lot of leading religious meetings. That passes
WP:DUCKTEST for me, even if they were not paid or full-time leaders. –
FayenaticLondon19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your kindness. You really made my day, when I realized that in wikipedia there are admins like you...thanks again, sincerely. --
Compte2013 (
talk)
00:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)reply
OK, maybe I should not be so impatient. Still, with your views on
Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta, I think you would find the current discussion around
Category:1939 establishments in Moldova very interesting. The frustrating part is a-someone created this category, b-it was speedy renamed to
Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, c-about six months later I emptied that category, because the one entry was not created there, but in Romania, d-someone nominated
Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic for speedy deletion as empty, e-someone recreated the Moldova category, and re-added the article to it, f-I removed the article since it clearly goes in the Romania category, and then nominated the Moldova article for deletion, mentioning that fact that there is the
Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and that that is the only logical meaning of Moldova in 1939, g-the people opposing the deletation accused me of being disruptive, when it was one of them who recreated a category that had been speedy renamed, and it is clearly acceptable to remove an article from a category it does not fit in, I guess maybe I could have been more transparent, but it is very frustrating. It is extremely frustrating because they are acting like there was no Moldova in 1939, when in fact there very clearly was a place that would be refered to as Moldova, it just does not share the same boundaries as the modern location, and in fact, depending on how you view Trannistria, may not coincide at all with the modern nation. I seem to be writing lots on this matter, and having people totally ignore what I am saying. It is very frustrating. It also sometimes feels like some people are trying to oppose every proposal I make and to attack me for even trying to make the categories more precise. Some of the "x category exists and we should respect that" rhetoric seems to be founders right, and deferral to one editor because they were more industrious. It is very frustrating.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
If it seems that you are being ignored, it is sometimes because you also ignore what other people are saying. I had forgotten, or missed, that there was no consensus at the Turkey & Pakistan discussions in December, and have suggested at the current CFD that we need a
centralised discussion. Why not start one, as you have so many similar cases in mind? –
FayenaticLondon18:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
cfd
I'm starting to wend my way through the unclosed discussions.
(With apologies to those who do), on the constant arguement of Ireland as a country vs Ireland as an island, colour me in as "I don't care" : )
I just closed that per the discussion.
If there is some guideline/policy I missed somewhere that had broad consensus, please let me know, as it should be given the weight it's due. But I didn't see much, except concerning the separation/distinctions of ROI and NI.
If a broader discussion is needed, or if specific categories need to be discussed, that can be done too.
Maybe we should nudge them to gain consensus on that. It would be nice for cfd commenters to refer to in the future, and to aid collaboration on this topic.
In the meantime, as far as this close, NODEADLINE comes to mind. If it turns out that that page gains consensus to be a guideline, then it would presumably be a simple matter to implement it in this case. Until then, I closed per the local consensus discussion : ) - jc3721:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
hi, the ireland category norms can be seen in the tree overall, which represents consensus. Feel free to enquire over there about whether a NI cat be in the ireland parent. I personally think its an exaggerated guideline - even though i wrote a lot of it (others did help, just cant find the talk now). In any case, that is the consensus, and no-one has opposed it or disagreed with it, so we should put it back under ireland.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
02:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I am not finding the consensus you speak of. But the past aside, it should be simple enough matter to post a link to the proposed guideline, and start an rfc on it. - jc3706:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The
discussion included comments by BHG, who is well-informed on this area, that People by city in Ireland should be split into 2 sub-cats for NI and the Republic. Instead of that, People by city in Ireland was merged into the "by city and town" category, so that point is moot. I don't see any mandate for excluding this Northern Ireland category from the Ireland hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree, no reason this should be any different. Jc, I don't wanna hold an RfC on the weighty matter of Ireland's overly complex category tree as I'd love to blow it up someday, but that won't get consensus either, so for now I toe the line but I don't wanna go out of my way to enshrine that overly complex system any further.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)reply
(de-dent) - I understand, however, this is about consensus. You took the time to write up the guideline, asserting that it represents current consensus. The way that we wikipedians show that is by having a discussion on it.
And though BHG may have our respect, she is just one Wikipedian. Just as each of us are. And honestly, have either of you ever known her to shy away from discussion? : )
Anyway, let me repeat, I honestly don't care one way or other how these things are categorised. But to revert contrary to a closed discussion is obviously inappropriate. The typical option is drv. And, as always, I'm fine with that. But consider that what we're talking about with a drv: it's a discussion. So should a drv discussion be started because you would prefer to not start an rfc discussion?
If there is already consensus on this, then an rfc at the Wikiproject should be a fairly simple thing.
I still cannot see how you conclude that the CFD discussion had a consensus to remove Northern Ireland from membership, rather than to create a separate sub-category. –
FayenaticLondon08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Again, I must concur. a DRV is a bit excessive - normally you talk it out with the admin, which is what we're doing. If we ask a few others to join this thread and comment (or bring it over to Ireland), and the consensus there is to keep NI under Ireland, will you reconsider? --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
12:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I welcome discussion : )
For example, I've suggested repeatedly that you could start a discussion on the proposed guideline.
But reverting a closure just because you disagree with it, is obviously not the way to go. It falls under "disruption", as I'm fairly certain you both know. I've seen people blocked for that before.
I've been tempted to drop a note there myself as this continued, but have been thinking that, as closer, it would probably be better if you or OWK started it.
As an aside, if you are interested, please check out OWK's talk page. I'm not sure what the final straw was, but regardless, I hope it's a short break : ) - Wikipedians willing to positively discuss, sincerely trying to contribute to the project are definitely to be missed. - jc3715:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Afaik, it doesn't prevent you. However, part of being a closer is discernment. So if you feel the community is better served of you step aside, and thus someone else closes it, then, follow your discernment.
And it looks like this is moot, as someone closed it already (and before I could respond to some "fascinating" comments there : ) - jc3706:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Before commenting on any future cases, I would really recommend that you do some wider reading of sockpuppetry-related pages. Of course it was not your intention, but your comments created a lot of confusion. I'm happy to clarify any SPI-related questions you might have. Best,
WilliamH (
talk)
13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the advice. When I first saw the case, I thought there was a miscarriage of justice, particularly as the case had already been closed by the time I saw one of the user pages on my watchlist. I looked into it thinking I might find evidence in favour of the user, but in the end I was persuaded by the evidence against him. Let me know if I can make amends e.g. by responding to his appeal, as I was not involved with the original decision. On the other hand, it may be best for me to leave this to experienced hands, and perhaps I would be considered
WP:INVOLVED by now.
If anything would be served by pointing me to the confusion that resulted from my comments, please do. Use email if that would be wiser. –
FayenaticLondon20:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)reply