Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 21 November 2012

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index

I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

Category:Steampunk music

Hi there. You recently deleted this category, and I was wondering if I could get you to reconsider. In particular, could you take a look at the most recently deleted version of the category's talk page and see if any of the reasoning there would be enough to undelete the category, or perhaps lead to another solution? Thanks! —Torchiest _edits 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Torchiest

Thanks for your message, and for the friendly and civil way you phrased it. I know that it can be frustrating to see the deletion of a page you would have wanted kept, so thank you for keeping that frustration in check!

My first response is that having reviewed the closure, I am satisfied that there was a clear consensus in that discussion that the genre was too ill-defined to make a viable category. I was only the closer, and since the lone opponent of deletion cited no policy argument to override the others, it was a clear delete.

It is very odd that you and some other editors chose to continue the discussion on the category's talk page after the discussion had been closed as "delete", because that was a page which had already been deleted, and was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G8 if recreated. If you think about it, it was a really silly place to post.

To be honest, most of the arguments presented on the talk page were weak. One editor suggested that it should have gone to AFD; but categories are not discussed at AFD, so that's silly. The same editor cited 3 sources in defence of hir view; not persuasive, because none is a WP:RS. The same editor argued that "only one of the regular respected moderators in the steampunk genre was able to offer his opinion" ... which again is wrong. The discussion was open for an exceptionally long 25 days (rather than the usual 7), and the category was properly tagged, so there was no barrier to any other editor commenting at the CFD.

The same editor had recreated the category immediately after it had been deleted in a deletion discussion, so its speedy deletion was perfectly valid.

You are entitled to take this to WP:DRV, but the only grounds I can see for overturning the decision would be if you had new evidence which was not considered in the deletion discussion. So ... here's my suggestion, to minimise bureaucracy. If you and/or other interested editors can produce evidence in reliable sources (not blogs or fansites) in support of your view, then I will restore and relist the category. If you have the evidence, then there's no point in using the time-consuming DRV process when we could go straight to a substantive discussion.

If you don't like that suggestion (or don't like my response to any evidence you produce), you are of course quite entitled to open a DRV anyway ... but this seems like the simplest way to decide what we do next.

How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I only posted at the talk page because someone else had recreated it, and I thought I'd leave a message for the next admin that came along. I hadn't planned on taking any direct action on the matter until I'd discussed it with some other editors first to determine a good course of action. I had and have no plans for taking this to DRV, as I've always thought your close was appropriate based on the discussion that existed at the time.

I know you're one of the resident experts on categories, so I do have a question about the nominator's original point, which is that the category has no main article. Is that a valid rationale for deletion? My understanding is that categories can exist for which there is no article of the same title. I'll have to consult with the other editors concerned for sources, as at least one of them is more expert in this area that I am, but are you asking for sources showing that the concept of "steampunk music" is recognized, or something else? Thanks again. —Torchiest _edits 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The nominator's rationale was partly that there is no main article, and I have not seen a consensus in other discussions that there is a requirement for the existence of a main article.

However, there is a widespread consensus that categories should be about something on which there could be a valid main article, or an intersection between two such topics. (e.g. Category:Mountains of Zambia is an intersection between two encyclopedic topics: Mountains and Zambia). There is explicit guidance in some cases (see e.g. WP:CATGRS) that an intersection category should only be created if the intersection is itself an encyclopedic topic, so for example we do not have a category which notes the intersection of Category:Lesbians and Category:Road accident victims.

In this case, it was the second part of the nominator's rationale which which a prima facie valid argument: that steampunk music is too ill-defined to make a viable category. Ill-defined and subjective categories are routinely-deleted (see WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE), so my approach to closure was that if that view was supported, then the argument for deletion was based in policy. (To take an extreme comparator, you can see why we would not have a Category:Uncool music; it would be wholly subjective. This was nowhere near such an extreme case, but I hope that the absurd example illustrates the principle).

My reading of the discussion was that it supported the view that the genre was to ill-defined. Nobody seems to be arguing that it is defined, but any evidence on that point would be relevant. Alternatively, it would appropriate to reopen the discussion is there was evidence in support of Andy Dingley's assertion that it iseasy to define and source the categorization of "the musicians of steampunk".

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)dl

Yes, thanks for the further clarification. I'm pretty sure there is evidence for that last assertion. I'll ask the other two editors to comment and bring some supporting sources here. —Torchiest _edits 17:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good luck. Obviously I can't predict whether a relisted discussion would reach a consensus to keep on that basis, but that sort of new evidence would be enough to justify a relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the one that restarted the page. I only restarted it after conferring with Andy Dingley; my first thought was to start a new page called "steampunk musicians", since it is much easier to define those musicians that identify as steampunk (see List of steampunk works#In music) than to define steampunk music itself, and then I thought we could have a sub-cat for genres within the category, as the category of Folk musicians does. But Andy thought the deletion was weak and suggested I recreate the page and challenge it directly; he thought that creating a new page might be seen as trying to do an end-around and might be considered bannable, so I took his advice. Sorry if I caused any trouble in the way I went about things.

I'm perfectly ok with and agree with Torchiest's suggestion then that a "Steampunk musicians" category be created in its place. I know a lot of the musicians that were in the previous category consider themselves first and foremost to be steampunk musicians, not darkwave or goth or whatever style they might play, and not having a category must seem a bit of a disenfranchisement. There have also been a number of articles, such as the big MTV article a few years back, that have mentioned several of the bands by name as being steampunk musicians (also almost every band on the List of steampunk works#In music page is already sourced, and I'm working on sourcing the others) so sourcing shouldn't be a problem. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jonny, I'm afraid you got bad advice. Re-creating the category was always just going to lead to G8 speedy deletion. I am sure it was well-intentioned advice and that you took it in good faith, but for future reference the route to go is to discuss with the closing admin, and then if you can't agree a solution, take it to WP:DRV.

I'm not sure whether a new Category:Steampunk musicians would be regarded as a re-creation of Category:Steampunk music, but there's a good case for saying that since it contains roughly the same articles, it's much the same thing. (As I think may have been advised).

Anyway, I took a look at the sources in List of steampunk works#In music, and to be honest what I'm seeing so far isn't great. I know that its early days and you've got more work to do, but there is a real shortage of reliable sources there.

Good luck in developing the list, and do let me know how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• This was a bad deletion from the outset. The idea that categories require a lead article is nonsense, especially when they're a sub-category of a category with a large lead article, with a specifically relevant section. Excluding a keep opinion because it was based merely on the outside world rather than policy doesn't seem to carry as much weight as inventing a fantasy policy to rely upon.

There was no consensus to delete. The fact that there was no clear consensus either way even after extending the run time is a further indicator. Yet (as is so often the case with CfDs) many editors were unaware of the CfD and didn't know of it until 'bots started deleting it from the member articles. After this, suddenly there's a lot more interest and we see three or four separate editors all in support of the category - yet this appears to have been ignored since and we see a dogmatic fallback on "there is no consensus, we have always been at war with Eastasia".

What's also ignored is the amount of damage that a category deletion like this causes, because the 'bots are on a hair trigger to remove inclusion in it (on an unwarranted timescale far faster than DRV could respond to). This isn't available from a single edit history, so is very difficult to recreate afterwards. Yet again, WP is about maintaining a status quo of infallible admins and civility than it cares about content quality.

It is trivially easy to define "steampunk music" for the purposes of WP categorization: simply subset musicians according to external sources placing them within the steampunk genre or community. Claiming that this is somehow hard to do is sheer WP:OR. It is hard to identify a genre of steampunk music as a style, but that's simply not the problem to be addressed here.

This was about as good a deletion as dieselpunk, when an article with over sixty references was deleted for not having references. Both represent a sheer inversion of WP policy against OR: they're WP setting itself up as arbiter of what does and doesn't exist, rather than faithfully reporting what established sources have already stated. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Andy, thanks for your comment.

  However, you don't seem to have read the discussion above. You say "idea that categories require a lead article is nonsense" ... but you overlook the fact that I agree with you on that point.

  Nor is it true to say that this was "extending the run time". If you look at the WP:CFD/W, and at its history, you'll see that there was a massive backlog at CFD. That's all -- a general delay in closure rather than any decision to extend.

  You say that such a category can be defined by: "simply subset musicians according to external sources placing them within the steampunk genre or community". Again, you obviously have not read my replies above to Torchiest and Jonnybgoode44.

  I am very willing to discuss my closure with editors, but I am not going to repeat myself. Please read the discussion above before posting here again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  PS You mentioned dieselpunk, so I went to look. I see that Dieselpunk was deleted at 3 separate AFDs, with more than 2 years gap between discussions, and a different closing admin in each case. Every time, the reason was the same: lack of coverage in reliable sources.

  I hope that Torchiest and Jonnybgoode44 succeed in finding reliable sources, but please don't complain here about that being a criterion. If you want to amend WP:RS, the place to do so is on that guideline's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to be misunderstood, then I suggest that you use a comment when closing XfDs. To close a CfD as merely "delete" implies that you agree with the nominator's rationale. This rationale had two parts: that categories requires lead articles, and that the genre is ill-defined. The first of these is based on an invented policy and also relies on the non-existence of the very section that the second part cites as evidence! The second confuses "musical genre" and "set of related articles".

Your analogy with "uncool music" is logically flawed. Steampunk music, like rockabilly or jazz music, has a number of simple defining conditions (and this simple statement of the category doesn't allow their implied members to be distinguished): music of the steampunk style, as defined by RS, performed by steampunks acting in character, or performed to an audience of steampunks within some steampunk-themed event. For all of these, the "steampunk" or "jazz" aspects have sourceable conditions that can define them. There is no such definition for "cool" music, merely subjectivity. If just one of these three conditions can't be easily met for steampunk (it's indeed true that the genre is ill-defined, and this is the only valid criticism of this category, even though it's far too weak to be reason for deletion) then there are still two others: most obviously and easily sourced, that of performing at recognised steampunk events.

The further flaw to this analogy is that "uncool music" is even less definable than "cool music". Anyone may (subjectively) term music as cool. but only if no-one does will it remain "uncool". I'll leave Popper to expand the rest.

You claim there was a "clear consensus" to delete. Yet of the four votes, only two editors supported either claim in the rationale. This is no consensus, let alone a "clear" one, it's merely a vote-counting populism. When it comes to the recreated article though, vote counting is out and the cabal falls back on an even more simplistic G4 to stifle debate. I have little faith in admins acting usefully and barely by acting to policy (which is different from quoting it when convenient). I doubt that this category will survive and it's certainly a waste to see Misplaced Pages as important or defining of what happens in the real world. I organise festivals of steampunk music, I don't find it particularly convincing for Misplaced Pages to tell me that it doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy, closing a CFD involves a lot of ancilliary work, and more progress is made clearing the backlog if commentary is kept to a minimum. 90% of closures are uncontroversial, so require no further comment. This appeared to be one of those, so I kept it brief ... and when an editor queried it, I was happy to respond in much greater detail than I could have managed at closing time.

Anyway, back to this category. You say it's " a waste to see Misplaced Pages as important or defining of what happens in the real world". I'd go further: Misplaced Pages quite explicitly does not try to define anything in the real world. Like other encyclopedias, Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source: i.e. it attempts to summarise the current state of knowledge in reliable sources, and it is a core principle that we don't do original research.

So, as I offered to Torchiest: if there are reliable sources which you guys think support this category, I'll relist it. Otherwise, you still have the option of WP:DRV.

But I'm afraid I am not going to discuss the principles any further. All I'm interested in hearing now is that you guys have a list of reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a pretty comprehensive article about the difficulties of defining the genre that also lists a good number of groups that are widely perceived as being in the genre, as broad as it may be.
• Here is a list of some of the most notable steampunk bands, which has a good amount overlap with those mentioned in the first article.
• Here is an article that discusses the steampunk aesthetic in general, but also talks about the music, and again lists the same half a dozen or so bands mentioned in the previous two articles.

  Is that enough to restore the category? I can continue looking for sources if needed, but that seems like a pretty solid start. —Torchiest _edits 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Torhiest

  Thanks for taking the time to produce those refs. As I said above, I am willing to relist the category for further discussion if you can produce references in reliable sources which make a prima facie case of answering the definitional and scope concerns raised in the previous discussion.

  If you want the relisting to be made on the basis of those 3 refs, I will do that. It is additional evidence not presented in the previous discussion, so it's definitely grounds for a relisting.

  However, before I do that, I want to suggest that you check whether the list so far is enough for you to want to proceed. (I say "suggest", because I mean just that: it's your decision).

  First, how well do these refs fit WP:RS? One of the pages is a blog entry, but blogs are not usually considered to be an RS. Only one (the MTV ref) unambiguously fits the RS definition.

  Secondly, when I look at the articles, I don't see much of a list of "musicians of steampunk", and certainly not a consistent list. For example, the MTV article only lists about 5 bands.

  So, what you have so far looks weak to me, and it seems to me that your best chance of getting a different outcome would be to have strong evidence. But it's not my job to cast a supervote, so if you want me to relist the category based on the sources above, I will do so. And if you want me to hang on while you look for more sources, that's fine too.

  Please let me know which you would prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I see now that the first article is written by a member of one of the bands, so that might be viewed as primary, I suppose. I think the other two are pretty good, but let's hold off a little longer. I'll take another look for more sources in the next day or two. —Torchiest _edits 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Lemme know if and when you want to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  I've found a couple more good sources. Go ahead and relist whenever you're ready and I'll present my findings. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I've been working on expanding and sourcing the "List of steampunk works:In music" section; it should provide a good source for rebuilding the category. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• steampunk music

  Love the video! Tho I'm not so sure that it makes your point so well as it reinforces the raguments for deletion.

  Anyway, I'm off to do the relisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Relisted

I have re-listed the discussion at CfD 2012 November 14, to allow editors to present new evidence as discussed above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Blackfyr (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Steampunk music deletion

Per the suggestion in the Deletion Review page, I am contacting you first to ask you to reverse the deletion of this category and reopen the discussion, as many of us who used and work on that category were not even aware it was up for deletion until it was already gone. The whole process seems to have gone by in under 30 days during a time period when many involved in the scene were busy. Thank you. Blackfyr (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blackfyr

If you look at WP:CFD, you will see that the normal time for a category to be listed for discussion is 7 days. There has been a backlog of CfD closures (see WP:CFD/W), so the category was open for discussion for 25 days, more than 3 times the norm.

The category was clearly tagged throughout that period as being up for deletion, and given the length of time for which the discussion was open, it is odd that you say that the editors who "who used and work on that category" were unaware of it.

As to reversing the deletion, please see the discussion above under at #Category:Steampunk_music, where I have explained at length why the category was deleted, and have also offered to relist the category if editors can produce the refs in reliable sources to support this form of categorisation.

I would be grateful if you took the time to read that discussion carefully before commenting further. I'm sorry if that sounds a bit rude, but I have already had one editor respond without reading, and that is not a productive use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. Somehow I had managed to miss that set of exchanges in your talk page. Being a Steampunk DJ, the list of steampunk artists was one of my resources to keep up on which musicians had been entering into this rather ill-defined genre. One of the problems with defining it is that so many other styles get blended into it. In fact, the entire genre (literarily, sartorially and musically) is a deliberate mixing up of things to fit a general aesthetic, which is, by its very nature, an amorphous thing.

Rather than continue to clog your talk page with this, though, I will contact the other editors to see what, if any, progress has been made on this. One question, though, if I may. Is there a way to get a dump of the contents of the previous page from before the deletion, so we have something to work from? Blackfyr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalker) The bot removed the category from these 21 articles and categories - hope this helps. Bencherlite 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That did help. Blackfyr (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Bencherlite, that's not stalking. Thanks for helping out so quickly :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In case you were not aware of the option, {{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner|75}} (here) is available as a talk page banner giving a friendly general consent for this kind of intervention... – Fayenatic London 14:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wasn't aware of that v useful banner, and have just added it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the related section further up this page, I have re-listed the discussion at CfD 2012 November 14. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actresses

Per the content guideline WP:Cat gender and the ongoing rfc at WP:VPP#Actresses categorization, I have moved the existing actress cat's to cat's of Category:Actors. Until the guideline is changed, actress is not a proper category. Personally I can see the desire to have the category, mostly in cultures that do not recognize women's rights. But process is process. It is easier to move cat's than to create actress as a category. Apteva (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted. This issue was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 11, where the outcome was to allow these categories to be relisted.

There are several open CfDs on such categories; please do not pre-empt their outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What? The guideline clearly states "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed". Until that sentence is changed, it is simply not appropriate to have a top level category called actresses, and any cat's that are either deliberately or inadvertently created as subcat's are in fact subcat's of actor, not actress. Let the process run its course - instead of assuming an outcome of overturning existing guideline. Apteva (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to delete a category, take it to WP:CFD, and seek a WP:CONSENSUS. Do not just unilaterally empty a category out-of-process (or redirect it) when WP:DRV has explicitly sanctioned a relisting of these categories at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not deleting a category. I am applying a guideline. There is an ongoing discussion of this issue, and until it is changed, the guideline should be followed. There are thousands of editors who add articles to categories that do not exist. Creating them to accommodate them is not what I would expect. For seven years this was not a category, and while discussion was going on it was created? Apteva (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting them is effectively deleting them; the bots will soon depopulate them if redirected.

The category was created per the decision at WP:DRV to allow to categories to be relisted at WP:CFD. If you believe that the categories should not exist, then open a discussion at WP:CFD, and make your case, which include citing the existing guideline.

You clearly believe that your view on the merits of these categories is correct, and you entitled to believe that. But the way disagreements are handled on wikipedia is by seeking WP:CONSENSUS, not by acting unilaterally to prevent a consensus-forming process from reconsidering a decision when a deletion review has explicitly permitted its reopening.

As you can see, I re-created the category on 21 September, after being explicitly encouraged at DRV to do so in order to allow a CFD discussion. The RFC was opened nearly 3 weeks later, on 17 October.

You are the second editor to try redirecting it out of-process rather than having a CFd discussion, and if you persist in trying to undermined the deletion review, I will take it to WP:ANI and ask that you be restrained from doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen, that was the correct response, and the advice to "recreate" (edit it to change it from a redirect to a category) was ill advised, in my opinion - leading to hundreds of edits that would not likely have been made otherwise - edits that violate an existing editing guideline before that guideline is changed, if it ever even will be changed. Apteva (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. You think that outcome of DRV was "ill-advised", so you feel entitled to ignore it.

That sport of approach could earn you a WP:BLOCK unless you back off and start seeking consensus.

I have already warned you about this, so if there is any further unilateral action I will take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about any of the above. Though I do wonder: if there is currently an ongoing RfC as you note apteva, why would you take action while the RFC is still open? There is no deadline, after all. Once all the various discussions are done, if there have been conflicting consensual results, then there is nothing stopping you from starting a subsequent RfC to resolve the inconsistencies. Merely a thought. - jc37 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point, jc37.

There is an open RFC, and several open CFDs.

I know of no precedent for unilaterally deleting categories at any time because an editor thinks they contravene of a guideline; such things are brought back to CFD for a discussion, or tagged for speedy deletion if that course is approved by an admin.

Sadly, this editor seems to think it appropriate to delete or redirect categories before discussions have been closed. At best this is premature; at worst it impedes the consensus-forming process by removing some of the paths through which editors may become aware of the existence of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see at any time in the history of Misplaced Pages that actresses was ever a category. What I do see is that for years it was a redirect. Categories are constantly moved around without the need for an RfC or a CfD. But creating it as a populated category instead of a redirect so that it can be discussed for deletion? Put it back to being a redirect and continue the discussion of deleting it. That seems to be the best course of action. Apteva (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Redirecting a category is functionally the same as deleting or merging it, and that requires a consensus at CFD. The previous deletion decision was overturned at DRV, and is now null and void.

If you want to delete it or redirect it, then simply: open a WP:CFD discussion. That's all.

Now, please stop wasting my time. Either seek a consensus for deletion/merger/whatever, or let the category stand. Choose whichever you like, but stop moaning about your inability to delete/redirect without a consensus to remove the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quirky talk page history as seen in popup

Hi BHG, You are now a member of the exclusive club of "Editors whose talk page history displays oddly as a popup from my watchlist"! Corporate Minion was the first - see User_talk:Corporate_Minion#Quirky_talk_page_history_as_seen_in_popup but has now left the group (I don't know what fixed the problem), and Bearcat was the second, then DGG. The edit summaries don't wrap until way beyond the outline of the popup box (or, in Bearcat's case, only about 4 characters beyond it). It doesn't really matter, in that the edit summaries are still legible, but something isn't working quite right and I don't see what characteristic is triggering it. Thought you might like to know! I'm reassured by the fact that another editor reports seeing it too. PamD 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is probably caused by an edit summary which contains a long string without whitespace. HTML usually wraps only on whitespace, so if that's not there it won't wrap.

Anyway, I dislike being in any exclusive club, so I hope that the effect passes soon :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

People from X

I made a proposal using a noun-based refernece to the country. Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_12#Luxembourgian. Would like a comment from you there. ChemTerm (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

American actresses

Thankyou for your help with showing me how to notify projects on the CfD on American actresses. I hope it will generate more discussion but I am not holding my breath.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I do quite a lot of notifications for CFDs I open. Sadly, it usually generates a very poor response.

But it is worth trying :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Derry cfd

I just saw you pop up on my watchlist so i thought I'd drop you a note while I was thinking about it.

I was intending to close the cfd, but no matter how many times I re-read it, my head was spinning.

Maybe you could take a look at the discussion, and perhaps at least clarify your thoughts?

Now that I'm leaving a note here, I'll drop a note at the nominator too. - jc37 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried doing a summary, but it ended up rather huge. :(

Sorry. Probably not much use as a summary.

I guess if I had to radically shorten it, I'd say this: a) There is no point in retaining duplicate categories. That merely confuses readers and editors. b) If editors want to rename some or all GAA categories, that should be done in the usual way by a renaming proposal, which starts from the status quo. c) If editors want to pursue that, it would be best to start with a wider discussion which considers the relationship between GAA counties and the administrative counties, possibly as an RFC. That way any decisions made can reflect a general principle rather than the passions aroused by the most difficult case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and well done. I closed it. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. I like the closure, but above all I am glad to see it closed after 4 weeks. I don't think it's helpful to have so many CFDs remaining open for so long, so it's good to see some admins trying to clear the backlog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary BHG. And thanks for closing that FL. I read BHG's lengthy addition and decided my bleary eyes were telling me I needed sleep. Looks like you took care of it while I was sawing logs : ) - jc37 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Subdivisions at CFD

I've floated a new balloon, with some thought on how subdivisions (un-modified) has some ambiguity in India (lesser concern) and huge ambiguity on whether any meaningful organization of the subdivisions is required. I gather that you're from Europe, so I'll use a UK example. The Home Counties - is that a subdivision of the UK or England? The division of the UK into its sections by watershed, biome, soil type, weather type, geology, judicial districts, parliamentary constituencies, defense zones, etc. are all "subdivisions" of the UK. I don't know if the UK has something akin Rust Belt (a subdivision of the US?), but I gather that the socio-economics of the old Northern industrial cities of the UK is quite separate than the "Home Counties". Anytway, it's just one word but it makes it clearer and I'd like to see if we can garner consensus. Cheers, 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carlos

Yes, I'm Irish but lived for decades in England, so I know both countries reasonably well.

The Home Counties is an informal division of England, and yes -- the cities of the North of England are a good parallel for the Rust Belt.

Two things seem to me to be significant here. First is that in the case of the UK, the political cultural and administrative units are all subdivisions of the four constituent countries. The UK is evolving from being a near-unitary state to a sort of asymmetric federalism, but even in its most unitary phase (1972 to 1998) the constituent countries remained distinct.

I'm not familiar with the geological zones, but I presume that some of them cross borders.

So, I agree: the UK has many difft types of subdvisions. I think it is probably convenient to group them all under the common heading of "subdivisions" ... but below that, the grouping should reflect the actual structures in place. To my mind, the lower-level standardised categories such as Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions don't work in the UK, because England's variable local govt structure does not have consistent levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Lots of countries have unequal divisions at the same hierarchical levels. Many countries have a "capital territory" which is a 1st level division of the country but does not have all the rights of the other first level divisions (in the US, e.g., the "District of Columbia" has no senators or voting members in the House of Representatives.) Other countries such as China and South Korea place cities at first level but don't give them the same powers as similarly leveled non-city regions. And then there's Russia, with first level "Federal Subjects" being of such a varied nature that defies categorization other than by level. And, of course, the further one goes down the hierarchical structure, the more deviation one sees: In the US, Louisiana has parishes, Alaska has both boroughs and census areas, Virginia has counties and independent cities, while most of the rest has just counties. And that's just administratively - subdivisions without the qualifier has all the various regions: California has Bay Area, Northern California, Southern California, the Central Coast, the Wine Country, Silicon Valley, the North Coast, the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, just to name a few...all of which are "subdivisions" of California. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of that summary. So why not just use the bare word "subdivisions"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Because "Silicon Valley" has no legal significance - no government, no ability to tax, etc., unlike "Santa Clara County", but both being potentially first-order subdivisions of California. Why confuse the two? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Legal significance is not the only form of significance. There are 47.5 million ghits for "Silicon Valley", and outside of the USA it is probably the best-known subdivision of California.
  The counties can be in a sub-category, which already exists at Category:California counties. If there are more informal subdivsions (such as "Bay Area"), they can be a sub-cat called something like Category:Informal subdivisions of California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a problem with the existing Category:Regions of California and its container category Category:Regions of the United States by state? IMO, those categories work fine. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree: Category:Subdivisions of the United States works fine, and one of its sub-cats is Category:Regions of the United States, which also works fine.
  I presumed that Carlossuarez was raising California as an illustrative case, because none of the proposals currently under discussion relate directly to California. I don't see any need for change there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate your pushing for mass nominations

I listened to your push for a mass nomination on the colonial issue. And what do I get. I see that the Category:Tennessee colonial people has been massively misues as a category for Cherokee who never acknowledge any non-Cherokee overloardship, and then for my trouble of removing these people from being so inapropriately categorized I get attacked by Hmains and have people tell me I am wrong and shoot down every one of my ideas. They have the audacity to want to mixed British and Spanish governors of Florida into one category. They call me disruptive. Why do I even bother. The more I try to improve things the more people attack me and denigrate me. No one ever appreciates anything I do. All they ever do is attack me. I try to improve the encyclopedia but it is never enough to satisfy people. I am sick and tired of being called disruptive for trying to make things make historical sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

JPL, I'm sorry that you feel hard done by, but building consensus is not an easy business.

I dunno whether you were right that some people were wrongly included in the category, but I am sure you did it in good faith. However, removing the articles before a CFD nom is often seen as inappropriate. If it is done, the nom should always disclose it. So even tho you obviously had no intent to be disruptive, can you see how other good faith editors saw what they thought was a disruptive effect?

Your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 15#Category:New_York_colonial_people didn't identify any difference between that and the other categories, which was why which I opposed it. If there are differences, then the mass nom was the wrong approach.

I also think in hindsight, it was a mistake to open so many separate but related nominations at CfD Nov 16. If the issues are not the same in each case, it's better to proceed step by step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• • First off, the main attack has been about articles in Category:Tennessee colonial people. The people being included or not is not at all relevant to whether the category should exist or not. Secondly, you fail to realize that Hmains has engaged in what I feel is a continued pattern or rudeness and personal attacks against me. This was a recent post he put on my talk page, and I feel it was rude, inconsiderate and out of line. "After all this, you still refuse to fix the mistakes you make. So I fixed it, but I and other editors do not appreciate having to come along after you edit and clean up the errors you make. And your errors are not 'rare'. I see them in about 1 of 20 or 1 of 10 of your edits. I suggest you need to clean up your act or stop editing this type of article. Helping WP does not include making errors because you do not choose to take the necessary time to read the article content. Hmains (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)" I am not sure what to do about such behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It is easy for you to tell people to make mass nominations, but you do not have to go through the emotional drama of being massively insulted and lied about as I have had to. It is very frustrating. I have been accused of making changes to the contents of categories when I made no such changes. It does not matter what I do, it never does any good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Then there was this statement "If you get a chance, you may want to look into the edits made by John Pack Lambert. My observation: he does not understand categories and the articles in them, but proceeds to make wholesale changes, regardless, to make things different than what they are now--with no good reason. Hmains (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)" by Hmains at Orlady's page. These two editors have coordinated their attack on me. This is worse then I thought. This is an unjustified attack, and I am tempted to respond to it, but do not think I can with any success. I have given up on trying to talk to Hmains. He believes it is his place to point out others mistakes and mock them for not correcting them, when it would be a lot easier for him to correct the issue himself. This whole thing is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

JPL, I have encountered your editing enough times over the years to know that you edit in good faith; I don't just have to assume. Similarly, I encountered Hmains enough to time know that zie too is working in good faith to try to improve Misplaced Pages.

In this case, you made some changes to the categorisation of people, based on what you believed to be the scope of the category; but Hmains takes a different view of its scope, and objects to those changes. Looking at the discussion, it seems to me that you both have a good point here. AFAICS, Hmains sees the category as including everyone who lived in the area now known as Tenneesee; OTOH you want to apply the political geography that existed at the time, and apply that political geography only those who fitted in that political structure. (pls correct me if I got that wrong). I can see a good case for both approaches, and I'm not sure which one to prefer. Maybe we should have both? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

People executed by China

Please see my request on Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)'s talk page on why I don't think a merger should have been done. Please provide your input. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have commented on Mike's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to tech chats

Hi! I believe I saw that you're interested in the software side of Wikimedia, and I wanted to invite you to watch and participate in our live tech chats, which include video streaming. The next one is next week and you'll be able to watch, live, via screensharing, as a developer fixes a bug, including investigation, a git commit, getting it reviewed and merged, and closing the Bugzilla ticket.

Hope this is of interest! Best wishes, Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. My interest in the tech side is sporadic, and only arises from particular problems, so I don't want any broader involvement.

If there was going to be a discussion how the WMF was proceeding to implement category intersection, I'd be very interested. It's a long-standing bugfix request. But I'm not holding my breath. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

in your userpage categorization, "carnivorous" is mis-spelled. wait, i think i just misspelled mispelled.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for intervention

User:LoveMonkey is under the editing restriction "LoveMonkey will not make article edits regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice", as I am correspondingly restricted from making article edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice. Would you please indicate whether this edit was a violation of the editing restriction. For myself, I believe such tagging is a violation, since allowing LoveMonkey to add this tag to information about Roman Catholic teaching or practice would open the door wide to many similar edits by both LoveMonkey and me, the sort of thing that the restriction I agreed to was meant to avoid. I have tried to get LoveMonkey to agree peaceably to withdraw his edit, as I myself recently reverted an edit that I made regarding "Western criticism of the practice of Hesychasm and by proxy the Theoria derived from it" without adverting to the heading, 10 screens up, "Eastern Orthodox Church". LoveMonkey has refused to make a similar withdrawal of his edit. On this see User talk:LoveMonkey#Edit regarding Western theology.

I would be grateful if you would kindly intervene. User:EdJohnston has given up his attempts to act as referee (see User talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou vio AGAIN). I hope this does not discourage you. Because LoveMonkey has now told me, "Please stay off of my talk page", I have thought it perhaps best not to inform him directly of my appeal to you. Esoglou (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will be available very little over the next few days, so it would be wrong for me to intervene.

May I suggest that you raise this at WP:ANI? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)