This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page
And when two or three editors say a single county community with just a couple of entries isn't worthy enough for a category that isn't localconsensus also? You and I both know almost all these CFDs are decided by a number of editors who you can count on one hand and have fingers left over. 4 editors say two county communities should get a category. How many are arguing otherwise? 4 or 5. At best you have no consensus....William 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
@WilliamJE: When the same question is repeatedly answered the same way by whoever turns up, then we have evidence of stable community consensus. That's why WP:SMALLCAT has been a guideline for over 7 years (see an early version from Dec ember 2006, and the deletion of the single-article ppl-by-place categories is part of that much broader consensus.
OTOH, the exception to which you claim is based on 3 or editors in one discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
No three discussions including the one just closed. Here's another CFD[3] where there was not a consensus to eliminate multicounty People from categories....William 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
And in that CFD 2013 December 2 discussion, there was also not a consensus to keep; in that case 3 editors supporter merger, only 2 wanted to keep. It would have taken at least 3 more !votes to swing the outcome to keep, but probbaly only 1 more to bswing it merge.
So the claim of a stable consensus to keep such categories doesn't stack up. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Busts by location categories
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi BHG, asking you as a categories enthusiast: could you have a look at new categories Category:Busts in the United States and similar, all created earlier today and populated by the same user? I'd have thought that sculpture busts are often small enough to be portable and exportable, so that their current location is not significant: we don't have Category:Paintings in the United States etc. Any thoughts? PamD 08:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I was a bit surprised when I saw the notification of your msg, but the first word did not have the meaning I originally thought. Tho come to think of it, I have read some good scholarly work on that topic with the other meaning. Fascinating semiotics.
Anyway, I am not sure about location categories for Bust (sculpture). I take your point about portability; but while a bust is more portable than an equestrian statue, it is less portable than a painting. Some of them are pretty much permanent fixtures in a place, and may even be carved into a larger structure. Moving the Lincoln Memorial Monument in Wyoming would be a non-trivial exercise. OTOH, some busts are small enough to be kept on a desk or table, and lifted easily.
Have you noticed any categorisation in this way of the sort of busts which might be moved around? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think any ambiguity here can be fixed with a good category description, indicating that the category is for busts that are either permanently affixed somewhere in the United States, or are under the long-term control of an institution in the United States. Obviously, we are not going to recategorize works in traveling exhibitions whenever those works are taken from one country to another. bd2412T 14:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, first I want to thanks for this edit here. can you do the same for this one too ? South Korea national basketball team. I already asked about it in template's talkpage but nobody noticed it so far. also you didn't have to add South for that change, you could simple remove both lines. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BHG. I noticed that you closed the RM but there is no reason stated yet. No pressure of course but just in case a reminder is needed; if not, please disregard. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 12:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi BHG, I was just going to revert the inclusion of the {{Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people}} RM at WP:CENT until I saw you had listed it. Does this really merit inclusion at CENT? Template names are generally of very little consequence, and notifying the WikiProjects may be a better way of drawing in interested parties. Inclusion of individual RMs and XfDs could really clog up CENT. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I thought long and hard before doing it., but I think that this is a rare case which would justify it. AFAICR, I have only once ever listed anything at WP:CENT, a few weeks ago: a CFD of a category with 30,000 articles, which had been relisted after lack of input. That was big enough to need broad input, and the listing on WP:CENT certainly helped.
This template name could potentially have bog consequences, which is why I listed it. It appears on 50 or more articles, and the proposal is the change its title to State of Palestine. I have no view on whether this change is appropriate, but since that state has limited recognition I know it will be a controversial step in relation to a topic area (Israel/Palestine) which has had numerous big rows, and plenty of trips to arbcom.
So rather than risk a bust-up after a discussion had closed, I thought it best to flag this up now, so that anyone who doesn't like the outcome can't claim that the discussion was under-advertised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sydney Derby RFM 'no consensus'?
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't understand how you could possibly have found "no consensus" at Sydney Derby RFM. There were more than double the amount of supporters for the move than against it, that is a clear consensus for the move in my opinion, and two of the people who opposed the move did so only because they don't think the article is notable at all which has nothing to do with an RFM. You left no reasoning at all behind the move, I would have thought that as an admin every decision made should be clarified. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your message. Every admin is accountable for their actions, and has an obligation to explain it if questioned. In an ideal world, I suppose every action would be explained at the time, but in practice things don't go like that. Some actions appear likely to be uncontroversial, and in those cases it is common not to provide an explanation upfront. Look for example at the requested move of "Stoopid Monkey". Unanimous opposition to the proposal from 5 editors, so the reason for the close should be self-evident.
As you may know, there is a severe shortage of admins, because not enough new admins are being promoted through WP:RFA. This is starting to cause problems in many parts of Wikipedia, and one effect is a baclklog of discussion closures. (See for example WP:CFD/W#Discussions_awaiting_closure or WP:AN/RFC). For at least the last month, there has been a big backlog of unclosed move discussions, some of them open for weeks beyond their 7 days. I have been working to reduce that backlog, and in 48 hours before your message I closed ~19 move discussions and relisted about a dozen others. There is a tradeoff between the amount of explanation and the number of closures, so when clearing a backlog I reduce the amount upfront explanation.
In most cases, this seems to satisfy participants in the discussions, and it takes less time to provide a more extensive rationale in the few cases where the close is queried. You have queried this one (as you are quite entitled to do), so I will review my closure and provide a longer closing statement. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I will await your explanation/rationale. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
hey how are you i was hoping i could reach out to you about the creating of or restoring the article sugaspott which was deleted some years ago
i intend to work on it and gather a general consensus of approval before publishing it
since the time it was deleted, sources that where not available to show notability have emerged over the internet and i suppose i figured maybe i can request the making of the article which i have already done and now also looking for editors who may feel like they could help. Since the original articles' deletion, i came to terms with the fact that in the greater interests of the bigger picture the right thing was done, i somehow now need help to create, maintain and preserve this article in the right manner
thanks
any help would be appreciated and i will be grateful for
Then go to your list, and remove all the unreliable or self-published sources. Then look at what remains, and see whether there is any significant coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response, having followed your instructions i boldly retain that there is sufficient material to state a case for notability. i guess when i reviewed the discussion on its deletion in the first place there was a sticking point that the artist had not been played on any natonal radio and that the only plays had stemed from local radio or similar level, which the following articles clearly shows that is no longer the case -
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039hlzg
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f7fcc586-7bd3-4872-9927-620da58b6421
i dont suppose you could retrieve a copy of the original deleted article for me to review, either way it maters very little as i am looking to rebuild it with a sterner approach, of course if there are editors willing to help me
Wikispott, you really do need to read WP:GNG and WP:RS a lot more carefully. If you think that those 2 BBC articles are relevant to notability, then you are seriously mistaken :(
If you recreate the article as proposed, I would have no hesitation speedy deleting it per WP:G4.
of course that would be mistaken of me to assume that the 2 BBC articles would account for notability, i may have been lost in translation so please forgive me, what i meant was that one one very old thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_April_30#Sugaspott a sticking point which i believed had led to the final nail in the coffin was that sugaspott had no national airplay so i pressumed as this was no longer the case then maybe it would obviously help the cause, once again i am under no illusions as to what to expect but i am also very grateful for your kindness and to be frank, quite humbled, much appreciation and please keep an eye on my work with this article as i will need some experienced guidance and mentorship of sorts and while you may not be as committed a once over every so often through the rebuild will be welcome - and i hope i am not missunderstood yet again.
Good Evening -
i would cherish some advice on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikispott/Sugaspott - feel free to edit anything or whatever in any direction you see fit. honestly i trust that yours will be a better hand than mine. that being said please forgive my usage of references as i only went overboard in an attempt to make it stick but yet again feel free to reliver judgement according to the policies no matter how stringent, i am ony hoping for the best with crossed fingers and that the final outcome is actually good enough to at least warrant something tangible but if not then the rebuilding continues.
Wikispott (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, since you had been drawn into the Massyparcer affair, you may have an interest in this:
I think, a block could be in order, if only to give the account a little rest away from the keyboard, and the other - by now quite exasperated - editors a little room to do useful work on Wikipedia. Thank you for whatever you think is right. BsBsBs (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
First of all, I have to say that BsBsBs is abusing the talk page at List of metro systems to drive out and shun another editor with a very specific goal of getting that editor blocked. Just a quick glimpse at the talk page and you will see half of the discussion is about the behaviour of an editor unrelated to improving the article. This guy is constantly questioning my motives and name-calling me all the time:
I don't think this will be the last we've heard of an editor I shall henceforth call Massiveparser. BsBsBs (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
, and is uncivil and rude by claiming that I make "incoherent ramblings" and "verbal pollution" and that I "contaminated" that talk page. He refuses to discuss this matter on Seoul Metropolitan Subway's talk page, only posting inappropriate content. Massyparcer (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Enough. Both of you need to work on resolving your dispute, rather than creating wikidrama.
@Massyparcer: quit edit-warring. From now on you are one a 1-revert rule, which means that you will be blocked if you revert more than once.
@BsBsBs: I don't think that you have reverted as many times, but you too have been edit warring. From now on you are one a 1-revert rule, which means that you will be blocked if you revert more than once.
Both of you, use dispute-resolution processes. If you dispute the reliability of a source, then don't edit war. Discuss it, and if you can't agree, take it to WP:RSN. If you think another editor is edit-waring, take it to WP:AN3 rather than the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of metro systems
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
User:BsBsBs is violating WP:NPA and is refusing to stop the wikidrama and is clearly getting overly emotional about me. It seems whenever things turn out unfavorable to him, he goes straight to questioning my motives with groundless claims and attacking me personally on List of metro systems' talk page in an attempt to mislead other editors. I have warned him to stop talking about my behaviour multiples times on List of metro systems' talk page, but he refuses to listen, abusing it as a tool to gather other editor's support against my behaviour. I have no interest in promoting anything, just a niche interest in Seoul, that's all. If you look at my edit history, I have tried to be as fair and neutral as possible obeying all Wiki policies that I have read. After I made WP:NPA very clear to him:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream
Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.
He ignored it right up on his next edit and tagged everything I wrote as SPA, claiming that I
"will try to assassinate whatever he thinks will send his Seoul to hell. Many times, he will shoot himself in the foot while doing so. Not a problem. This SPA account can be abandoned, and sleepers can be activated."
I need your help to end this wikidrama and his constant hostility and personal attacks against me, because other editors are believing the rumor he is stirring up about me. Another editor reverted his SPA tagging of me, saying that "Yes, I disagree with Massy very often, but its outright harassment to tag every post with the same tag. Reverted, and I warn you not to do this!". But who knows what he will do next. He seems unable to control his emotions. An interaction ban was raised by another editor as a possible solution. Massyparcer (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Massyparcer: you are at least as much at fault as the other editor. Both of you have been edit-warring, both of you have personalised your disagreements, and neither of you has bothered to take the obvious step of drawing up a neutral description of your substantive disagreement and seeking an outside opinion. If the pair of you keep on like this, you will both face sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
In theory. But in practice, after sticking my neck out to stop an editor doing a multiply inappropriate early close, it wouldn't be a good idea. If I close it, somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way. So best to leave to another admin.
"somebody might suspect that I had kept it open just to be able to close it my way" Highly unlikely in this case, and it seems more like an avoidance, but you have to do what you think is right. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Suggesting that I am engaging in some sort of avoidance is a rather snarky assumption of bad faith. I may be excessively cautious, but having been an admin for nearly 8 years I have my own instinct for when a situation looks potentially tricky. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your edit to Georgian rugby union teams, a complete dog's dinner now. I notice you never bothered to take it to the rugby union crowd either.
Perhaps we should rename all the Victorian articles in case they bother people from the Australian state.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi BHG, thank you for commenting on the Leilani Leeane discussion. I agree that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their sources, but there is unfortunately a lot of conflict over what sources are reliable, acceptable, or even genuine with regards to the Adult industry. I personally find it odd that there is such intensely applied double standard with regard to trade publications for the industry. Trade journals for a myriad of subjects are seemingly accepted everywhere else on the site, but are repeatedly impugned when it comes to anything porn or human sexuality related. Furthermore, these journals conduct themselves much like any other mainstream media outlet with regard to their editorial policies and choices, but no one seems to acknowledge that. As far as I am aware, no one has accused AVN magazine's Paul Fishbein of pushing a political agenda like has happened with Michael Bloomberg or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Anyway, its good to have an additional set of eyes on the articles. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
thanks, and about undiscussed speedies in general
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, thanks for closing Dakelh. Could you please have a look at Talk:Stawamus and consider what I'm saying there, and likewise on my section on reversion of undiscussed speedy moves - no matter how stale (LabattBlueBoy's contention on Talk:Stawamus is that because an obscure article which got speedied did so a long time ago (when nobody was looking) is justification for it to remain where it is; even though he, like the article's mover, cannot in fact provide any citations to prove THEIR case. Undiscussed controversial moves, no matter how "stale", should be rolled back IMO.....but even when they're not stale, I can never seem to get one rolled back. And am always faced by people being very obstructionist (and seeming to relish the part) without themselves having any sources to prove their position. Or thinking they do, but on close examination (as with Stawamus) they don't at all; and even though User:OldManRivers and I are from the area, our knowledge of this community is being rejected outright, with the suggestion that the article should be deleted. Is ant-native language chauvinism that entrenched and that bitter? If an article's name isn't English enough, then that community's name should be wiped off Wikipedia? The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument has been posited in one of these RMs, can't remember at the moment if it's this one; but when does that get shoved aside in recognition of a real-world convention covering hundreds of native-language placenames in Canada, some of very large communities. Are only the ones with 7's and other special characters going to be deleted because somebody's got their knickers in a knot about being hardline about Wikipedia being English-only ("speak white" is how that comes across in Canada btw)? When a common anglicism, still in use (and not archaic), is available as in re Kii?in->Keeshan, that's OK (sort of) but when one is NOT, as in the case of Sta7mes (where Stawamus is common but pronounced differently and never used for the community), then what? All I'm seeing/hearing is obstructionism and a real digging-in-the-heels about the right of white ) wikipedians to dictate to native communities what they're allowed to be called. As re a comment I made last night on the new RM at Talk:Squamish people while it may be that Wikipedia's job is not to advance or promote a term or a convention in modern Canadian English to use such terms, it's also not Wikipedia's job to promote archaicisms and mistaken names and resist changes that more recent sources prove are happening. Forcing the past on the present is not Wikipedia's job. Also in the context of what happened to native cultures, that their languages were beaten out of them, their communities' and their own personal names were changed by edict, for Wikipedia to continue to replicate those forced-change names and outright errors is just....wonked.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
AjaxSmack accused me last night of attempting to WP:OWN the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish article- another case of making Skookum1 the target of criticism instead of answering to the points he raises. That's a new one, though. I've been around BC indigenous articles since 2007 or before and am among those who built the category hierarchy and article structure/content formats and am also among those who are knowledgeable about this particular area (and then some)...and the problems with these articles, to me, are coming from people who "OWN" guidelines and feel a compulsion to enforce them, ironclad rigid and not without a bit of power-tripping, and are obstinate about their own lack of facts, and who do not know the field, nor local geography, nor look around to what conventions on similar articles or related categories might be in place that their "have to" change is going to upset........nor have any respect for indigenous issues nor indigenous communities ("we don't care what they prefer to call themselves" is an oft-heard and kinda stupid refrain and whatever's in MOS that gets people saying that needs serious revision). The Fifth Pillar seems lost on everyone, though as I noted User:Phaedriel invoked it to shore up our creations of Category:Kwakwaka'wakw and the like, and also re OldManRivers' original Skwxwu7mesh title with all its diacriticals. And his creation Sta7mes and other community articles in what is now Category:Squamish people - which so far nobody from somewhere else armed with a monolithically-applied wiki guideline has come along to screw with; myself I'd strip the diacriticals off a few that still have them but that's a different matter than wiping the native names entirely; sure we have lots of archaic sources for Ustlawn instead of Esla7an but that doesn't mean the modern native spelling shouldn't be respected; it's also on Mission Indian Reserve No. 1, but as with Sta7mes/Stawamus Indian Reserve No. 24, that doesn't mean they're the same thing; nowhere near (see my comments about IR names vs communities-on-IRs in the Stawamus discussion). Or is WP:DISRESPECT a guideline somewhere? And since when does standing up for what is right constitute WP:OWNing?? I'm gonna get accused of polling, and ranting, so I'll leave now....Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
My warning on NBSB talk page page is below.
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I see no need for admin intervention here. The IP is free to disagree, and if her remains unsatisfied with my answer, should follow WP:DR procedures. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following two articles you had edited is not stalking.
Your edit[7] to Huma Abedin added unsourced negative info to a BLP article, so it was correctly reverted per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBarano should have left an edit summary explaining why they did this, but the edit itself was correct and needed.
Your attempt[8] to tag Susan L. Douglass for speedy deletion may or may not have been justified, but it was appallingly implemented. Again, it was correctly reverted.
I suggest that you pay a little more attention to the quality of your edits before making allegations of stalking. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
As far as it being unsourced that is completey incorrect as it is well sourced in the article and the linked article Anthony Weiner sexting scandals has 77 sources. The revert was done not for lack of sources but disagreement about it being in the opening as it has been in the article for quite some time. Please read the article before making the accusation that it was unsourced as you are clearly the expert in formalities here. I simply put a brief statement in the intro. It appears you maybe unfamilar with Weiner. The disgraced politician is well known in America and unfortunately she is better known for her husbands pornographic sexting to young women than for any other reason. Her husbands lewd behavior has brought much undesired attention due to his fascination with sexting parts similiar to his name. It is quite ironic and made much press. I do not care that NBSB reverted it but is very well sourced in the article and others as well. It is also abundantly clear the only way the editor in question got to my other edit was by stalking my edits. I am calling it as a reasonable person would not some stack of wiki bureaucracy manuals. No one edited that article for 2.5 years. NBSB was monitoring that article due to proclivity to edit war and sought revenge. NBSB then reverts another article I had worked on as a unconstructive tit for tat. No question there and completely obvious. It may have been appalling performed but it definitely was abandoned, unsourced, and not notable. At least I made an attempt but as I noted I am no expert and as you pointed out again. However NBSB was malicious and the track record speaks for itself. It does not matter from this point on to me. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple.
Look, if you up your game and still feel stalked, get back to me. But right now you are complaining about the reversion of things you did badly, and that's not stalking. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
OK I will bite. Where did that rule that come from? Please cite your rule. Quoting your advice "accompany it with a citation wherever it is mentioned. Simple." --172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Heres is the brief from BLP Wikipedia's sourcing policy, "Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." It does say it must be credible. It thouroughly met that definition with 77 sources in the main article. You stated: "If you want that sort of info to remain in a BLP, accompany it with a citation Wherever It Is Mentioned. Simple." It clearly does not state that. That goes against notation standards. I recommend the Chicago Manual of Style or MLA if you like for further clarification on what is proper notation. It does not have to be done "Wherever It Is Mentioned." You added that burdensome requirement. Although I may somewhat of a novice to wiki's often contradicting bureaucracy I am no novice with proper notation. Again it is well sourced in the article and the linked article. Again the NBSB was exercising ownership and "stalked my other edit" for malicious purposes. A reasonable person would see that clearly. Again I asked you to warn NBSB further as you had done 2 weeks previously. It appears you condoned their action by accussing me of "added unsourced negative info to a BLP article." That was not done as I pointed out it was already in the article and thoroughly sourced. I only added a few words from the main article into the opening, nothing new. Again I do not care that NBSB reverted that, that is an editorial disagreement and I did not feel edit warring was beneficial. The malicious behavior after that was my concern. It is never proper to go after someones edits because they did not like the one you made to an article they felt ownership of. NBSB did that, there is no question to that by a reasonable person. I am disappointed you failed to acknowledge this point and attacked my intentions on NBSB's page. Your accusation's toward my intentions were rashly made. I have clearly demonstrated that. An apology for accussing me of having negative intentions would be nice. Another one for adding unsourced material would also be nice. And again my main concern was the hounding (if stalking does not fit wiki's definition) of my other edits for malicious purposes. Stalk: "to follow (an animal or person that you are hunting or trying to capture) by moving slowly and quietly" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stalk another definition would be to hound someone for malicious purposes. My use of English was proper. I clearly demonstrated it. I also clearly demonstrated many other issues other editors have had with the said editor. The greater mystery is why false unfounded accusations of intent would be leveled against someone who sought someone who was supposed to know wiki's bureaucracy and was familiar with the editor in question to look into the matter and consider issuing a warning. I did my research before bringing this to your attention and made it as easy as I could for you to follow. Then you made a thinly veiled false accusation about my intent which is unfounded and unconstructive and one reason I am here challenging it. I showed you NBSB's action and they speak for themself. I never met NBSB before this but I saw something that is unacceptable behavior. Possibly you assumed something else but it is better to stick with the facts and not get caught up in conjecture about possible motives. Sorry so long but I wanted to make my points very clear so as not to be accused of anything else. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I will not even try to read that unformatted wall of text. I have already explained that I see no need for admin intervention here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please be so kind as to read the edit notice which appears on this page, particular the second unindented bullet point. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why not just paste the link to the discussion in your message, in plain view, from the outset?
WP:AT. Since WP:AT is the policy basis on which all move discussions are assessed, I saw no need to spell that out explicitly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you please be more specific and explain what arguments are presented during this discussion in connection with WP:AT?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.
This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.
That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relisting
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello BHG.
This is about the requested move at Talk:Alpine skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's Super-G, which you recently relisted. There are sources backing up the request, two editors support the request, no editors oppose it, despite the RM having been around since 16 February. Two editors have raised a couple of questions, which I have replied to.
If the full 7-day waiting period is again required, then the move will not be done until 11 March. Given the backlog on WP:RM, wouldn't it have been easier to just move the pages?
So far, the nominator and 4 other editors participated in the discussion. Of those 4, two did indeed support the move, but neither offered any rationale beyond "per nom", which is usually regarded as a weak form of support (because it shows no evidence of having engaged with the rationale). WP:NOTVOTE, and "support per nom" is little more than a form of vote.
The other two editors both raised substantive questions about the evidence. So, there is no consensus at this stage, and if I had closed now I would have closed as "no consensus". It seemed better to relist and allow other editors an opportunity to express their views.
Ok, thanks. I guess I'm just eager to get the post-move fixes going.
Tell me, if I were to invite/remind the editors who raised questions, to see what they think after I've responded and added sources, would that be considered canvassing?
So long as you keep the msg neutral and send the same message to all who participated, it would be absolurely fine wrt WP:CANVASS, and in fact a very good idea :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Requested move
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You closed the discussion on the move request for International Conference For A WMD-Free Middle East with the conclusion "The result of the move request was: moved per nominator." And yet it has not been moved. Did you mean to move it, or did you mean for me (the nominator) to? NPguy (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I meant to move it myself, and have now done so. Sorry for that clumsy oversight, and thanks for reminding me. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Discussion closed. This procedurally flawed move request did not produce a consensus to move, by any measure. No amount of badgering me will alter that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
About your closing RM, on pagesarticle talk[9] and WP talk[10]. Of course the split is unfortunate. You even mention it "a procedural disaster". If it were really that bad, why not reorder the RM e.g. by relisting, by requiring proper listing, or something else. I already mentioned that in the nom listing and in the end. My question is: (how) did this procedural issue influence the outcome in any way? -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
`:Hi DePiepReply
This is a fairly basic aspect of consensus-forming, per WP:MULTI. Splitting a discussion has several disruptive effects:
Even if editors have spotted that there are multiple simultaneous discussions on the same issue, they may not want to waste their time posting the same comment in two places. That means that neither discussion includes the full range of views expressed.
Editors posting in either location may be unaware of the full scope of the nomination, which may alter their assessment of the proposal.
There is a risk of a different results at each location, with neither discussion representing the actual consensus of editors.
In this case, the proposal was rejected at each location. Even reading the two discussions as a whole, I find only 3 editors opposing your proposal, and only one supporting it. That lone supporter chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it.
When a proposal is made with serious procedural flaws, the resulting invalidity of the consensus means that the outcome is to restore the status quo ante. In this case that is exactly the same result as happens from either weighing each discussion separately, or from weighing them together.
So I see no reason to expect that a relisting would lead to a different outcome.
As with any failed proposal, it may be raised again after some time, provided that any new nomination clearly and prominently links to the previous discussions and notes their outcome. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
So your reasoning is, in short and in my words, "discussion content & outcome showed no need for a procedural corrective action". I will make remarks about the closing process first, and after that point to the actual discussion, since that content is part of the closure.
the nominator split the discussion over two separate pages. No, I did not (me being the nominator). The article talkpage notified and linked to the single point of discussion page [11], as advised in WP:MULTI you mentioned. It happened that two other contributors started arguments below that notification Smokey JoeXoloz. So actually other editors initiated the split. If anything, opening that thread should have been judged out of procedure (and could have been corrected easily).
the proposal was rejected at each location. That is a curious statement for both pages. The article talkpage counts two !votes, and your conclusion clearly does not use the discussion following (it is a simple votecounting; more on one "me too" !vote below).
About the WT Elements location, the rejection statement is even more strange. There were three contributors (nom + 2). Their positions were 2:1 favouring the change. Even if one would discharge feline1's comment for being improperly formatted (more on this below), the score would be 1:1. That still would not support an unqualified "rejection" conclusion. And that is weighing feline1's contribution as zero; any "little weight" you read in there would tip the scale in favor of the change to say 1.01:1. The closing did not mention argumentations.
User:feline1 supported the proposal [12]. Afterwards here, you state that feline1 "chose not to format their view as a !vote, which leads me to attach a little less weight to it". First feline1 clearly stated their opinion, and I do not know of any guideline that allows !votes to be discarded for being 'not formatted as a !vote'. Quite the opposite: a closing editor is supposed to consider the arguments given, more than judging their formatting (WP:RMCI). So, not only did you resort to vote counting, you also choose to reject opinions for being not formatted as a !vote. Against such incidental and opportunistic logic, I cannot argue.
Actually feline1 did add a new argument: "it should have been done years ago! ... Wikipedia's early years ... fixing it yet". That makes this comment rejection even more strange, noting that you did not reject the "me too" !vote by Xoloz, which did not add any substantial argument. Feline1 is a long-term contributor to WP Elements btw.
All together, these are illogic argumentations you made from the discussion. Since a wrong content perception lead to a wrong procedural conclusion, I now will make some notes on the content.
My nomination and subsequent contributions stated these steps: 1. the scientific name for the subject is: "period 1" (as an example for the range period 1 – period 9", obviously). 2. That is the firstly proposed article title by WP:ARTICLETITLE. 3. Then and only then, for WP:DISAMBIGUATION reasons, there could be a "(dab)" term needed in the Wikipedia page title, like making it "period 1 (periodic table)". However, since Period 1 is undisputed as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no disambiguation term is needed. These are WP guidelines to be applied.
None of the three opponents disputed step 1, step 2 or step 3. Opposing arguments were asking to clarify the scientific name in the page title, bypassing or misreading titling and disambiguation guidelines. Change a title for to make it recognizabile for readers is not a guideline. It would even change the existing scientific name! Also, the linguistic problems with construct "periodic 1 element(s)" were not resolved.
Concluding, I described that your assessment of the discussion (content) showed serious flaws. Since you based the procedural outcome on that, that is misguided too. I propose you re-asses the discussion from zero, and conclude either a "do move" (I am serious) or a procedural solution with a reopening/rejudgement, like relisting/procedural close/reorganise a new listing, etc. (In this last option, I don't have a clear idea about which procedural step would fit; suggestions are welcome). -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I find it quite bizarre to learn that my vote on a subject was discounted because I didn't use some arcane piece of wiki-markup. May I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BUREAU#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy ? I have been editing wikipedia since 2004 and I have never heard of "!vote". I guess I'll be told off it I don't assume good faith, but that leaves little else to assume other than obtuse daftness.--feline1 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Bucket loads of bad faith here from feline1 and DePiep, so I will be blunt.
WP:CONSENSUS is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia; it is the basis of how we make decisions. A discussion split over two locations is no more appropriate for reaching a consensus than a face-to-face discussion which is happening in two separate rooms.
I am not interested in how the discussion came to be split. It may have been a good faith decision on how to structure the discussion, a mistake by editor(s) who intended to do something else, a misuderstanding of the intentions of the nominator, or a deliberate exercise in disruption. I assumed that it was a good faith error or errors, but the tenor of Feline1's post above tempts me to revise that view.
What matters to me as a closer is that the discussion was split. That means that there was not a coherent discussion, so it cannot be assessed as a consensus to move.
DePiep, that means following the conventional procedures to ensure that move requests are discussed at only one location. I share your frustration that the process for multiple nomination is clumsy (not just at WP:RM, but also at WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD etc) ... but that's how it is. Not using it properly is no personal failing on your part, but it does create an impediment to proper consensus being formed.
Apart from the incoherence of a discussion split across 2 locations, there was no particular policy basis for discounting the !votes of one side or adding weight to another. So even if I had been closing purely on substantive rather grounds (rather than including procedural considerations), I would have had to accept that 3 out 4 editors who expressed a preference rejected the nom's arguments.
Feline1, bolding a clear preference for a particular is not an "arcane piece of wiki-markup". It's one of the simplest pieces of wiki-markup (three single-quote marks at either end of the bolded phrase, also achievable by a 1-click button at the top of the editing window), and it is routine at all RM, RFC and XFD discussions.
Both you: instead of complaining to the messenger who closed this mess, both of you would do much better to spend a few minutes learning how to make consensus-forming discussions work properly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Join me in drafting an RfC on Disambiguation/Primary Topic?
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Although I have immense respect for you as a Wikipedian, we seem to have very different philosophies regarding disambiguation and primary topic issues. I would like to craft an RfC to gauge the consensus of the community on the degree to which we should prefer either primary topic designations or disambiguation pages for certain kinds of situations. We apparently have divergent views on whether hatnotes are effective for navigation (I think hatnotes are great for that, but you and other editors have suggested that they are too easily glossed over, and are not useful when set atop a very large and slow-loading page, which I agree is a concern).
I would also like to float some specific ideas - for example, that even though Apple is a primary topic, links to Apple should be piped through Apple (fruit), so that it is easy to find errant links intended for the company, or other less common uses. I note also that when Wikipedia articles are accessed through certain mobile devices, only the first section of the article initially shows up, and the other sections load individually. Perhaps pages like Apple and George Washington should initially load a shorter portion on every platform, so that a reader looking for the company or the university will not need to wait for the entire page to load for the hatnote information to be presented. Perhaps for an article like Apple, the hatnote should be made more prominent and dynamic, and the disambiguation information should be kept in a collapsed template in the hatnote, rather than on a separate page. These are just some thoughts that I have had on the topic, but I would like to have an RfC to tease out all of the reasonably possible options, and to see what is likely to work the best. I feel that if we write something together and can agree on its language, we will end up with a very neutral and informative description of what is in dispute, and what issues need clarification. Cheers! bd2412T 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your message, and for the suggestion. I agree in principle with the idea of an RFC, but some of your suggestions fill me with horror. My initial reaction was that they are straw men, and although I don't believe at all atht you intend them that way, I would be horrified if anyone suggested that the fruit was not the primary topic for apple. I think that floating that in an RFC would be regarded as so silly that it would prejudice readers against the rest of any proposal.
My concern is that while many editors are articulate exponents of the benefits of selecting a primary topic, some of their arguments are misplaced, and there is a strong tendency to overlook the downsides. That leads to primary topics being selected at far too low a threshold.
Screenshot of the Wikipedia page en:Apple As to hatnotes, look at this screenshot of the page Apple. I have compressed it to 1/3 of the original size in each dimension, so it is only 11% of the original area, and the text is illegible. My point is to not read, but look at the visual prominence of the various elements. Notice how the hatnote doesn't stand out. In descending order, the most prominent items are the picture, the infobox, the heading and the table of contents. The hatnote is one of the least prominent items on the page. As Nielsen repeatedly reminds web designers, people speed-read web pages, so care needs to be taken.
One idea I have been toying with is the notion of a "near-primary topic"; something which isn't far enough ahead of the combination of all the others to be a primary topic, but is still significantly more important than any other individual topic. That topic should be listed at the top of the dab page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
We already routinely list the most prominent topics at the top of the dab page (see Phoenix, Mercury), but we are still taking those readers to a dab page instead of an article. With respect to those topics, it is unavoidable, as there is no possibility of determining a primary topic. With respect to Apple, I completely agree that the fruit is the primary topic and do not mean to suggest otherwise, but the computer company is a very strong second (and there are dozens of other meanings). Someone who types "Apple" while searching for the company will need be on a very long page on the fruit with, as you have noted, a hatnote that doesn't particularly jump out. If we could somehow make the hatnote more prominent, that would make it easier for the errant reader to find what they were looking for. If we could make a shorter version of the article on the fruit load first, that would also reduce load time and make the hatnote more prominent as a component of the page. Of course, then the reader who was actually looking for the fruit would need to click something else to load the rest of the article (unless they found the information they were looking for just by reading the lede. With respect to Apple (fruit), this is a redirect to Apple; if every link referring to the fruit was piped to Apple (fruit), the page would still be at Apple, but it would immediately be apparent which incoming links were probably intended to point to Apple, Inc., because they would not have (fruit) in them.
We also need to consider the range of disambiguation pages themselves. Some dabs are very easy to use (Heavy metal clearly and distinctly lays out the major possibilities), while others are pretty horrible (good luck finding a particular John Smith). I think we can develop ideas that will improve the nuance with which these pages are presented, and with which primary topic determinations are made. Some of my ideas may be a bit out there, but they might inspire practical advances. bd2412T 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Variation/Shades move
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry I fragmented the move discussion. I have never been in this situation. I would have moved these pages myself if I have could done so myself, as this was the consensus anyway in the [discussion from 2011] I linked to. I thought this was a "no-brainer" (and quite a few people agreed). It was quite a bit of work putting all the pages together and sorting the mess out – I have no interest in doing it all over again only to be shot down on another technicality I have overlooked. Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
BTW: Nowhere does WP:MULTI state that such move requests have to be closed with "NO CONSENSUS" – especially considering as there was quite clearly major support for unifying of these pages. I find your behaviour quite bureaucratic, disruptive and cynical, closing the discussing when the reason you have given is so contra-factual. You have written that you would be happy to help, but after your help so far don't be too sad if I forgo any future help from you. Tony Mach (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. You recently closed the RM at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington. Can I ask what threshhold(s) you believe should be reached to demonstrate that a name is the common name in reliable sources? And over what timeframe? (In this case, the name change is barely a month old.) Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if there is any guidance on duration, or that it is necessary. WP:COMMONNAME says "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change", and that seems to me to better that setting an arbitrary time period.
OK. You should be aware that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA notes under its final criterion, "Consistency", that "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.", which is what the move proposed. But I'll make sure to demonstrate clearly that the proposed title is the COMMONNAME the next time around. Out of curiosity, can a move request only be completed if the nominator's rationale is accepted as sound reasoning, or if another (better) reason arises in the discussion? Thanks. Woodshed (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, consistency is one of the goals (not rules) set out at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Two editors alluded to that, but it is a much weaker argument than COMMONNAME. I attach no weight to it when the consistency being sought is not a consistency of naming pattern (such as "List of Foo" for standalone lists, or "Foo FC" or football clubs), but is actually based on a claimed consistent use of WP:OFFICIAL. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Closing RM Period 1 element (take 2)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Discussion closed. Learn some manners, and learn how consensus-forming discussions work, and stay off my talk page. Further posts here from this editor will be reverted unread. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May I suggest we seek another admin's opinion on this matter? You've unilaterally closed the discussion, and deleted further comments, characterising them in bad faith as "badgering", despite there clearly being a lack of consensus amoungst editors. I also find it patronising that you claim I don't know how to use bold text - I have been using it on here for about 10 years. What I said I was unaware of was "!vote" syntax. Although I guess you'll just delete this too /sighs/--feline1 (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Consensus-forming discussions are routinely closed unilaterally. There are some exceptional circumstances where a group of admins may close a discussion, but they are very rare. If you are referring to the discussion on my talk page, then it's simple: per WP:OWNTALK, I am entitled to close any discussion on my talk page, and to delete any comments. The editnotice on this page] clearly says in large type "Disagreement is not abuse. But if you post abuse, I will probably close the discussion without making a substantive reply."
As to bad faith, in your first post here you chose to accuse me of "obtuse daftness". If you choose make a personal insult in your first comment on the closure, don't be surprised that your conduct is labelled as badgering.
Similarly, your later comment was abusive, so I deleted it.
If you want to contest a closure, the first step is to ask to closing admin to explain their closure. Per WP:ADMINACCT, I did that, promptly, and have not been persuaded to change my decision. You are quite entitled to disagree, but you are not entitled to abuse me in the hope of changing my mind.
As set out at the top of every closed RM discussion, the next step open to you is to request a WP:Move review. Feel free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, as usual with Wikipedia these days, it's easier to just disengage - I feel like I'm talking to a cult member who just keeps peppering their sentences with dogma phrases, none of which quite make objective sense to a rational outsider. If I request a move review, I'll probably just get more of the same. It's quite clear you were more interested in bureaucratic convenience, and have minimal knowledge of chemical nomenclature, never mind critiquing the clunky linguistics dreamt up in 2003 by a 14 year high school student from Hong Kong (which was what we were trying to improve). Also, for someone whose interests include "gender neutral language", you have an amusing choice of user name :) --feline1 (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Feline1, if you want to edit here, consensus-building is the basis of how wikipedia works, and civility is an important part of that. Peppering your contributions with insults doesn't get you very far in any consensus-building exercise.
You seem determined to ignore just about every aspect of wikipedia procedure, including weighing consensus. As closing admin, my role is to weigh the consensus, not impose a supervote. Any knowledge I do or don't have of chemical nomenclature is utterly irrelevant, because the closing admin's role is quite explicitly not to impose their own views of the topic, or to form any opinion on whether a title is clunky.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Common Gull. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:MRV#Common Gull. Not clear to me why there is any reason for a move review. But one possible outcome of a move review is Relist. Would you consider agreeing to a relist? In my opinion that might allow the review to be closed, to give time for WP:BIRDS to get their act together. According to what people are saying in the review, there is some reason to follow the IOC naming. But unless there is a clear RfC within the BIRDS project, which someone actually links to in their RM vote, it's hard to see how the closer is to be influenced by that. So if we close the MRV on the merits, it would have to be an Endorse (in my opinion). The Relist would just be a shortcut to help those affected by the decision to reach a more solid consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, EdJohnston and Snowman, for your messages. The closure was a fairly straightforward case of no consensus, and since nobody seems to be disputing that, I don't see at this point that I have anything to add to the move review.
As to EdJ's suggestion of relisting, I would usually think that was an option worth considering. However, in this case the dissension is not so much over this particular topic, but over the underlying question of whether to follow IOC names, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). That has manifested itself in a long series of RM disputes, many of them verbose and some of them heated, as editors rehash the same question.
AFAICS, an early relisting of the Common Gull discussion would simply return everyone to the same pointless cycle of using a specific instance to resolve a policy question. It would be far more productive to open an RFC to see whether there is a broad consensus in support of the guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Use_the_most_common_name_when_possible that " Wikipedia uses the bird species and subspecies common names published by the International Ornithological Congress at the World Bird Names database". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, BHG,
This is a minor problem but it is bugging me and I hope you can help. I've been working on categories of WikiProjects and came across Category:Defunct WikiProjects and arranged for these defunct WikiProjects to appear in alphabetical order. However, despite using {{DEFAULTSORT:X}}, a few still appear under WikiProject X (so under W, not X).
I realize that few people check out categories filled with abandoned projects but I'm more interested in figuring out what I'm doing wrong or what I am missing. Is there a hidden template or code that regular editors can't see? {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} works most of the time to alphabetize the articles or categories within larger categories but, when it doesn't, do you know why?
Thanks for any answers you can provide. LizRead!Talk! 18:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can you give me some examples of pages which aren't sorting as you want them to? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, you can look atCategory:Defunct WikiProjects page and see all of the pages that are filed under WikiProject and not X. I placed {{DEFAULTSORT:X}} on every page in this category and most of them were filed under X but if you look at the category page there are about a dozen you can see that are filed under "WikiProject". LizRead!Talk! 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
DEFAULTSORT is overridden by a sort-key applied specifically to any individual category. Here's one example I fixed by setting a better sort key. Alternatively I could just have removed the sort key relied on DEFAULTSORT.
D'uh! I always assumed that the "default" would have precedence over any keys set for individual categories.
But the problem with categories like Category:Inactive WikiProjects is that the categories aren't added manually, they come as part of a template so you can only set a default key. So, a sort key applied to a separate category will have precedence over a default sort key, even when it's not set for a template category? Unfortunately, depending on the category, different keys need to be set. I guess a case by case judgment will need to be made.
I appreciate you looking into this, it was driving me a little nuts! LizRead!Talk! 22:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The categories coming from templates are easily dealt with too. Just add the category manually, with the sort key you want, at the bottom of the page (or at least below the template). The last supplied sort key will be the one used. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Greetings
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
8 March
All the best on this day, both in Wiki and in the real life:) Cheers!Brandmeistertalk 08:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Type 45
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Editor used the wrong link when citing a source. Somebody else fixed it. Apparently it's my fault that when the editor was twice reverted for a broken citation, they didn't fix their own mistake. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
You queried the reference I added to this page saying in your edit summary "claim thar [sic] "Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers" not supported by referencedsource"
On page 6 of the referenced source the NAO states "The delays on the Type 45 destroyer project mean that the Department is still actively operating five Type 42 destroyers which offer a much more limited capability."
Then on page 12 the NAO states "In an intensive attack, a Type 45 destroyer would be able to simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than the remaining Type 42 destroyers operating together."
I have added the page number to the reference to clarify but I'm having trouble understanding how you thought this was not covered by the source. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification.
Thanks, Mark83 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Since I have gone out of my way to explain my reference to you can you show me the same respect by discussing rather than reverting my edit? Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, Mark83, I reverted and was writing my reply when called away.
I reverted you with the edit summary "cited quote does not exist on referenced page", which in any case I had hoped would not require further explanation.
I see that another editor has subsequently replaced your reference with a ref to a document which does actually contain the text quoted. That solves the problem this time ... but in future you could save yourself and others a lot of hassle by ensuring that you reference the correct document. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, my point is the respectful thing to do would have been to explain here first since I had reached out to you.
Whilst I take your point about referencing the correct document it strikes me that you must have known the link to the cover page of the document contained the link to the correct material. You could have saved yourself and others a lot of hassle by replacing the correct url and sending me a friendly note to point out my honest mistake! Thanks Mark83 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, I didn't know. I looked at the page you linked to, and it didn't contain the text you cited, which should have been obvious to you.
Every editor takes responsibility for their own edits. It's not the responsibility of other editors to wander around the web in the hope of finding the URL you might have meant, rather than the one you actually cited. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The reference I gave was for a report titled "Providing Anti Air Warfare Capability: the Type 45 destroyer". The erroneous link, which I apologise for, takes you to a page titled "Providing Anti Air Warfare Capability: the Type 45 destroyer" with a link Full report (pdf - 695KB). So whilst I made I mistake, the extent to which you would had have had to "wander around the web in the hope of finding the URL you might have meant, rather than the one you actually cited" is unclear to me. Should a fellow administrator not have been a role model for dispute resolution by replying to me here? Do you doubt I would have quickly corrected the error when it was pointed out? Your instinct to revert would have been understandable if I was not acting in good faith - I think it's clear from my edit summary on the page & my first comment here that I was acting in good faith. Mark83 (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I didn't think you were acting in bad faith, and nothing I wrote suggested that you were. I reverted for the simple, stated reason that the linked page did not contain the text you claimed it contained ... and as explained, I was called away before I could make a fuller reply to you.
You made a mistake, which is fine; we are all human, and mistakes happen. But please stop complaining that instead of fixing your own mistake, you chose to insist that I should have read what you meant rather than what you actually wrote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hornung
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I assume you meant academic sources are "reliable" rather than "liable"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I left that close in a bit of a mess. Now fixed, and thanks for pointing it out. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Object-Role Modeling -> Object-role modeling
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for implementing this request. We ended up with Object-Role modeling but the desired naming is with "role" not capitalized. Object-role modeling is a redirect and I cannot fix it. (I fixed the talk page!) Thanks again. Jojalozzo 20:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why did you move it? I oppose. And AngusWOOF voted for So Long! (song), not for So Long (song). (I simply didn't notice the proposal cause I don't have the article in my watch list.) Please move it back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I moved it because I thought about it again, and decided that since Talk:So Long (AKB48 song)#Requested_move had dealt with exactly the same set of issues without opposition, an RM discussion was superfluous.
If you want to have a rerun of the previous discussion, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks., I'll revert. :-) There have been similar discussions with different results:
It all depends on who notices it. And not many people do. I think it is unfair to people who do other things except constantly monitoring their watchlists and page move discussions. I think when people who contribute to the pages moved by In ictu oculi come back and see what happened, they are mostly annoyed. Cause if they wanted to move the pages, they would have done it already. If In ictu oculi wants to improve Wikipedia, he should propose a rule for disambiguating titles with punctuation marks instead and discuss it with as many people as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I moved it back. I would have moved it to Bingo! (AKB48 song) to avoid future discussions, but I can't cause there is edit history. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Moved So long (AKB48 song) to So long! (AKB48 song). It was able to retain the history of the RM. So long (AKB48 song) redirects to it now. You can go ahead and update the other articles. I also chimed in on the Bingo RM. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Reverted. It was renamed at a recent RM discussion, so if you want a different title, try a new RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I have kicked off another RM discussion. Had I known the ! would disappear I would have opposed it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Period 1 element. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DePiep (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Favour
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for proving my point. Removing my response to your skewed summary of our Type 45 discussion above & the edit summary "which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you" is simply contributes to my concern about your attitude. I don't require a reply. Regards Mark83 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For continuing to volunteer at an exceptional level despite what sometimes seems like an endless torrent of ill-thought criticism. bd2412T 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
On Wikipedia, as elsewhere, most folks are decent and well-mannered, and most disagreements are resolved without too much drama. Sometimes, though, there is a reminder that empty vessels make the most noise ... and some encouragement at those times helps a lot. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Where drama does arise, there is a time to walk away from it. I admit, I find it hard to do so myself, but ceasing to engage your critics (particularly in fora where the paucity of their arguments is self evident) does not equate with conceding their claims. bd2412T 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, BD2412. Point taken. It has been an unusually nasty episode, and it is time to unplug. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Communes/comuni/comunes of Italy
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello BHG. I was looking at Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move to see if it's ready to be closed. About a zillion files will have to be renamed if it goes through, so I hope whatever change is made won't have to be undone. The term 'comunes' doesn't get universal support in the discussion. One editor said it is a bit too much of a neologism. Can I ask how you would personally rank these options, assuming that 'comunes' might not be the final outcome? The choices to pick from would be Comunes, Communes, Comuni or Municipalities. User:Andrewa has started a new voting section on 'List of communes' and I would wait before closing if I thought that others might yet add their opinions to that thread. People are OK with 'List of X' so far. The question not yet decided is 'List of what'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't really my alternative proposal... but it may not be all that important whose idea it was... Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@EdJohnston: Thanks for your msg, and sorry for the slow reply. I was diverted yesterday by a bit of wikidrama.
Whether or not it was Andrewa's idea, I have come round to the view that it's best to use the English translation "communes". I will leave a note about this at the RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your follow-up. I have now closed Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move as 'Moved to List of communes of X'. Presumably the other actions you cited in the move proposal should also be done, but with the 'communes' spelling that was preferred in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Shades/Variations page move
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
C'mon, Liz, don't make me hunt around looking for the location of whatever discussion you are referring to.
Also, please explain what you want me to do. Open a an RM? Close a discussion? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, the RMs were put on the Talk Pages of those four articles and on every one, everyone responding supported moving the "Variations of" articles to the more commonly used title "Shades of" (which is used for all other colors). You mentioned on the Talk Page discussions that is was not proper to have four separate discussions of the same issue (true!) and offered to help with the move. For example on Talk:Variations of brown, you said,
"I am therefore closing all 4 discussions as "no consensus", without prejudice to an immediate renomination of the same set in one location. Guidance on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves, and I will be happy to help doing that if asked on my talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl"
So, that's what I was asking help with, since you offered. LizRead!Talk! 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: Thanks for clarifying that. I'll get to it later today.
But please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please ... do include the relevant direct links when asking for help. I have closed many dozens of discussions over the last few weeks, and don't immediately recall every one of them. It's so much easier to respond when the links are set out clearly, as you did so well in your second message :)--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I thought this instance would be memorable. I didn't realize you closed a lot of discussions, I think of you busying yourself with CfDs, not RMs. I don't know how you do so much! But I will take your advice and next time provide diffs. LizRead!Talk! 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I decided last month to do a bit less CFD, and more RM closures. Not sure whether I will stick with RM; it seems to come with a much higher rate of avoidable drama, and I dunno if I want to expose myself to that much hassle.
Sorry that I was a bit snippy in my replies to you yesterday. The nonsense from the misquoting-wikilawyer had got to me a bit, and re-reading the discussion above I was lot less frinedly than I like to be. SorrY! --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I knew that my query was coming on the heels of that AN/I dramafest. I'm glad that has blown over.
I really enjoy working with categories but I find discussions on CFD involve so much unresolved conflict. I got so depressed seeing all of those gender categories put up for deletion, going over the same argument again and again and again. With only a dozen or so editors regularly participating in CfD, it often only takes 3 or 4 people to decide the future of categories that I think are important (and some of which will probably be recreated).
Well, that's off-topic! I'll look into the RM for the colors. Thanks for following up on that. LizRead!Talk! 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: I'm sorry to say that it's a problem all over Wikipedia. Not enough active editors, so discussions in most places involve only a few editors. If it gets much worse, large parts of the consensus-forming process will simply break :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Category:Lists of Scottish MPs
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, BrownHairedGirl: thank you very much for the work you have done/are doing to improve the names of articles of certain Chinese dynasties. I have been making some contributions in this area as well, and may continue to do so. I am wondering if there is an easier or better way to fix certain category issues, such as Category:Ming Dynasty poets, other than for someone to create Category:Ming dynasty poets and to then go through and manually edit each of the relevant articles? Again, thank you Dcattell (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi Dcattell, you're welcome! It was a much bigger job than I had expected, but I had a little time to get stuck in.
Please don't go manually renaming categories. Apart from being very hard and slow work, category tasks like that require prior consensus, at WP:CFD.
In this case, these are renamings to match a head article renamed at move review, which fits the speedy criterion WP:C2D ... so you can use WP:CFD/S.
By far the easiest way to do this is with WP:TWINKLE. If you don't already have Twinkle enabled, then make haste to Special:Preferences to do so :)
BTW, I had written the above before your PS, when you proposed removing the word "dynasty". That would not fit the speedy criteria, and would require a full discussion at WP:CFD. Personally, I think that I would oppose that change as removing clarity, and in some cases creating ambiguity: Category:Song poets ... but if you want to make the case, feel free to do so.
Hi again! And, thanks! I'll be following your suggested links and reading through the information there. I'm not in an urgent hurry to change the category names around; and, in fact, I believe that there is a certain encyclopedic point to informing readers that various sources use both forms such as "Ming dynasty" and "Ming Dynasty". I also agree that there is some inherent ambiguity in article titles such as (and in particular) "Song poetry"! The reason for these titles was partly because of the then ongoing dynasty/Dynasty controversy, and also because there was already a first-in-series of related articles titled "Tang poetry" (a name which directly reflects the Chinese terminology -- in which context any evenly moderately informed Chinese reader would already know that "Tang" refers to a specific dynastic era). My only real concern would be to avoid unnecessary confusion for new editors or readers due to major inconsistencies or from lack of clarity. However, these questions of nomenclature may fall under the category of bridges better crossed some future day, or year. Best, and thank you again Dcattell (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Dcattell: I decided to go ahead with the speedy renamings of the categories, and have started listing the categories at WP:CFD/S. There may be a case for other changes in addition to the capitalisation, but to keep things simple, let's just do the capitalisation fix for now. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Yes, and I'm still working on learning more about categories, which I have always found challenging, and still need to read some of the material from your links (also I'm not a hobgobblin for total consistency). From
I think it would be quite helpful to change/move the categories named "...Dynasty poets" in the Category:Chinese poets to "...dynasty poets", except of course "Six Dynasties poets", "Five Dynasties and Ten kingdoms poets", and "Northern and Southern Dynasties" since in these 3 particular cases "Dynasty" is part of a proper name (both in Chinese and English). But of most help would be to do the lower case "d" with Category:Han Dynasty poetry and Category:Tang Dynasty poetry. In any case, the work done in changing the Chinese dynasty article names is already a valuable and important step for Wikipedia, also perhaps a logical and foregone conclusion, but one the sooner done, the less cleanup afterwards! I am very appreciative for the work that you and others have done in this regard and am sorry to not be more helpful. Dcattell (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you look at the introduction to Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom? As I read that it seems to include every residential building, at least in the first line or two. I know that there are some definitions for some of these, but those of us on the other side of the pond are not well versed in the divisions. Right now it seems to be just country houses, castles and manor houses. Which is not a problem. I'm probably going to tag as a container category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I read that intro as a lot more restrictive: "anything of historical architectural note that was used as a residence by a noble family or persons of esteem in history". That may not be the best definition, but there is another one at country house: "a large house or mansion in the British and Irish countryside, usually associated with the aristocracy or landed gentry". That's much more succinct, and should be used in the category intro.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, BrownHairedGirl. Could you please take a look at the codes that I have started adding to the pages (starting with the top ones)? I feel that it might be wrong...Hoops gza (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Discussion closed. Skookum1 is free to open a request for deletion review, but should first read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bad call, very bad. Didn't you even look at the category tree and the other titles and parallel primarytopic town vs band the town takes its name from issues? No, of course not. I'll save my breath, see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22. I'm girding my loins to get Squamish, Squamish, British Columbia and Squamish people jointly relisted by MoveReview. Yes I know I have to write tersely and neutrally and that logic and evidence are not on the table - only wikiquette is. Please sir, may I have a relisting etc. There were five Canadians as well as myself in that and you should have clued into what Themightyquill was saying in my defense. The current situation is untenable and has to still be resolved; the guidelines already exists to support Skwxwu7mesh, but nobody would ever acknowledge any of that; even for quoting and commenting on very relevant passages in TITLE I was told to shut up. Before this is another "wall of text" I'll sign off. Both you and Fayenatic London made me the target of your negative decisions on this title, and making editors the issue rather than the topic itself is supposed to be against the rules.Skookum1 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Shishalh was just moved from Sechelt people; there's already a Category:Shishalh, which I created to prevent someone copying the Squamish pattern so no CFDS is required. But this is an exactly parallel example, as with many others, of the native name being the "way to go" and the "anglicization" that is the town, in this case Sechelt, requires no disambiguation, as is supposed to be the case for unique-town names in Canada. Skwxwu7mesh is exactly the same, just not as common in print. The Ethnicities and tribes guideline is very clear on this choice of native name even IF it's not most common. A future CfDS after relisted RMs is the way to go; and getting CANENGL to embrace issues of toponymy vs indigenous nomenclature...well, we'd already "solved" that years ago but it's been shoved aside.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
See the guidance at WP:TPYES: "Be concise", and "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." You made a herculean effort to ensure that this CFD discussion finished by exhaustion.
You are of course free to open a WP:Deletion review. However, before you do so I strongly urge you to take a break from the issue and consider the disruptive effect of your extraordinary verbosity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talkback
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at WP:CFDS. Message added 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Hi again, keeping this short, I've explained everything at User talk:Anthony Bradbury#A10 criteria but I haven't got any reply so far. As expected, the page was re-created again by someone else who noticed all the redlinks, so now this seems a bit silly. I initially felt that an old article which has a lot of history and was a featured list gets suddenly deleted outside the A10 criteria instead of being made into a redirect, was a simple mistake which could have been rectified quickly. With it already re-created, I'm at a loss as to what to do...should I file a report at DRV or ignore it since there's no obvious loss...what do you feel? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your message. WP:CSD#A10 clearly applies only to recently created articles, which was definitely not the case here. I will ask User:Anthony Bradbury to undelete, and if he doesn't do that then a deletion review is definitely needed.
There are several possible solutions to the duplication, but speedy-deleting the edit history of a former featured list is not appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
It has already been undeleted (as it happens, not by me). As far as I can see the article is as it was before I touched it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks both of you but I'm confused. If it is as before then how come we can't see the previous history of it here...am I missing something? It's still shows as a brand new redirect without its old history. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Ugog Nizdast:@Anthony Bradbury: I can't understand why the history was there earlier, but had gone when I looked at it now. Anyway, I have just undeleted the history
AFAICS, User:Logical1004 did a plausible merge, but didn't properly mark it the actions as a merge. The remedy now is to note the merger in the history of both pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, I see that you have restored the old history. Yup, like I said the first time, I think Logical misunderstood how to merge and used A10 accidentally. Anyway, I've added the respective merge templates on both talk pages. Thanks once again, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Ugog Nizdast: Good work adding the merge templates. I have restored the revisions of the talk page, and am sorry I didn't restore them first time round. Brain was elsewhere :( --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for this confusion. I should have done that in a proper way. Thanks Ugog Nizdast, BrownHairedGirl for your effort in correcting the mistake. Logical1004 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Help Needed
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I came across your profile while searching for administrator. I need your help in a article as I may be wrong. In 2014 India is going to have an Lok Sabha elections. There is a wiki article regarding that. As the elections are approaching, people are trying to use wiki as a tool for advertisement. But final decisions are taken on the basis of discussions on the talk page. But like party position, even though the decision is made by majority of the users and the article was edited in accordance with that, 1 or 2 users are reverting that back every time without taking part in discussion. I am not saying whether the decision after discussion is neutral or not, but has been discussed and decided by majority. So I wish if you could go through this and decide what is right. Thanks. Logical1004 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Logical1004: I've checked the page history and don't see any recent edit wars...so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The article is pending changes protected here so I don't see how any form of blatant disruption can take place. About Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Party position, this seems like an old content dispute and I recommend you seek some sort of dispute resolution if this is what you're involved with.
I don't see how BHG can help you here in any other way besides protecting pages. If you're looking for a 3rd opinion of some editor or just want more participation, why not try posting at the India noticeboard? The page does look like it's being actively monitored by many editors though. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for replying Ugog Nizdast. I was asking some senior editor's help on this issue, before going for dispute resolution. You can see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and some more.... I may be wrong, but as the elections are coming nearer, this kind of revert are becoming common. Logical1004 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Let's continue this on your talk page here. Good day, BHG :) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Closure of proposed move
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Black crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Grey crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a Move review of Red-crowned crane. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Quoting of a guideline
Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Since this issue is now being discussed at move review, there is no point in continuing a parallel discussion here. The move review was opened by Cas Liber, who opened this discussion, but who failed to mention or link to this discussion when on the review page. It is important that admins are accountable for their actions, and explain them when challenged. It is also important that editors who are unsatisfied with explanations given have the courtesy to acknowledge the existence of those explanations when exercising their right to seek a review. That is explicitly sought in the instructions for opening a move review: "please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You quoted a guideline incorrectly at Talk:Crowned_crane#Requested_move - Wikipedia:NCCAPS#Organisms currently includes Birds as an exception.So no the bird naming guideline does not contradict it. Given that the Opposes actually outweigh the supports. So would ask that you reconsider the three individual species pages on this, which now sets up a discrepancy with the other 9000 pages of bird species. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Casliber: That section is clearly marked "The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion. Please see the relevant talk page discussion for further information", and has been marked as such since Sept 2012. When there is a consensus to remove that {{disputed tag}}, I will revise my reading of the guideline. Please note that I really have no interest in one side of this dispute prevailing over the other. But is is ridiculous that the community has had to deal for so long with a series of naming disputes based on some editors support of a guideline for which they are unable to demonstrate any consensus. Those in favour of capitalising bird names make a good prima facie case, but unless and until there is a community consensus in favour of that view, the general guideline prevails. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean "unable to demonstrate consensus"? Neither has the other side. All the people that actually edit bird articles are happily in agreement more or less. Every so often someone who is interested in guidelines gets annoyed about it and the discussion crops up (again and again). Neither side can convince the other so there is a deadlock, which you have now broken in your interpretation of consensus above. The page does not have an undisputed consensus guideline which you assumed in making the close. Thing is, people who assume lower case are going against official bird lists and IOC - i.e. not actually reflecting what the real world does but following an internal policy. Bird editors have tried to follow what is done elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is no "community consensus on a wider scale.", there are a small number of editors (who don't edit bird articles) who feel there should be lower case for them - this is why the guideline page is in dispute. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Casliber: The general consensus is as set out at the start of WP:NCCAPS: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun".
That stands, unless there is consensus for an exception, which we agree that there isn't. And that's the basis on which I closed the discussion.
As to the IOC etc, I specifically noted in the closure that those of you who argue for a guideline based on IOC practice clearly have a case worth hearing. I suggest again that you open an RFC to seek consensus for a guideline which reflects your desired style, rather than asking me to overlook the state of the existing guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please read the rest of WP:NCCAPS, and don't quote selectively (generally a sign of a weak case). WP:NCCAPS#Organisms is clear: An exception is common names of birds, for which WP:WikiProject Birds recommends using IOC naming, which (generally) capitalizes each word. There have been many and repeated discussions as to the titling of bird articles, and all have ended in a consensus for the status quo. To move a few bird articles based on a limited discussion simply creates inconsistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, I will be opening a move review in the first instance. There are 9000-odd species articles that are happily in Title Case until one of these discussions erupts. We are following official guidelines and the guideline page has the birds issue mentioned within it right now so there you essentally moved 3 pages (1) based on no settled policy and (2) against numbers. If you move them back I will see to it that an RfC opens in due course (well, I will anyway, but first will sort out the Move Review) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
I strongly support Cas Liber. You haven't answered my point. Anyone can mark part of a WP guideline page as disputed; the question is whether there has been a consensus to change the guideline in question as a result of the marking. There has not. The WP:BIRDS page links to some of the archived discussions, all of which supported the status quo: 10-1, 7-1,7-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2–3. Have you read these and other previous discussions? Are you familiar with the long debate in this area?
There's an important balance between respecting the expertise and hard work of WikiProjects and their members and the need to avoid local consensus which might harm the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm not a member of WP:BIRDS, so have no personal stake in this issue. I do however see knowledgeable editors in my own WikiProject, WP:PLANTS, driven to leave by constant attacks from those who don't have comparable expertise and don't edit in the area. I'm sure you don't intend it as such, but I see your behaviour here as insensitive at best and aggressive at worst. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Casliber: I will not move the articles back. I provided an unusually lengthy explanation of why I closed the discussion as I did, and I stand by it. You are quite entitled to disagree, and to open a move review if you so wish, but if you do so please ensure that you link clearly to the discussion here. However, rather than prolonging the argument over a specific instance, it would be a much more productive use of everyone's time to open the RFC and seek a broad consensus to settle the whole issue.
@Peter coxhead: The discussions you link to are all on WP:BIRDS, so they are good evidence that the the WP:BIRDS guidelines reflect WP:BIRDS consensus. The crucial issue here is that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at WP:BIRDS does not represent a wider community consensus.
One test of a wider consensus comes at WP:RM, where the WP:BIRDS approach of following IOC nomenclature rather than common name has frequently resulted in either a consensus against the IOC names, or no consensus. I can see the attractions of using IOC nomenclature, but WP:BIRDS needs to persuade the wider community of its case for following that approach, rather than simply insisting that the project's view trunmps community-wide policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
You were the one that unilaterally broke the current status quo, and then have the temerity to concede the argument has merit above (????) "The community" involves mostly people who edit guidelines pages and many of the same people crop up. The difference is that the ones proposing caps are the ones actually editing the articles - this shows astonishingly bad faith in assuming that a whole cohort of editors are somehow ignorant or misguided in some way in pursuing this. You're assuming there is consensus where there is none - and furthermore the Wikipedia:NCCAPS is...a guideline not a policy. You haven't demonstrated that tehre is preexisting consensus, only assumed it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Casliber: This is not complicated. If you want the community to follow WP:BIRDS guidelines, open an RFC to see whether there is consensus to do so. In the meantime, leave off the bad faith accusations that I have made any assumptions about anyone. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
