User talk:BrownHairedGirl - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 12:45, 17 June 2012 (Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 10d) to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 024.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:45, 17 June 2012 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 4 threads (older than 10d) to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 024.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Misplaced Pages adminI have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance.

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.

If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

List of Scottish National Party MPs

Gondola lifts

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 7#Subcategories of Category:Gondola lifts by country.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I obviously was mistaken

... when I made this proposal, which is fine. I note in the past that you have put in very hard and productive work to standardise categories such as this in bulk, albeit for a different tier of education. The reason for this message is to ask your opinion, not on the individual proposal I made, but on this class of categories and the format of the category name in general. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Police brutality discussion

Hi, I notice that you contributed to the Cfr dicussion concerning Category Police brutality in England. If I read you correctly your reasons for maintaining the status quo seem to be a) Keep it the same as the other existing categories, Police brutality by country etc and b) Keep it the same as the head article Police brutality.
My point in making the nomination was that labelling anything, whether by the police or anyone else, as "brutality" does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policy regarding NPOV. To put an article in that category the editor has to make the value judgement that the article is about an example of police brutality, whilst being neutral in our point of view suggests not labelling incidents in that way.
The point, therefore, is whether or not the label "brutality" is POV or not. If it is then we should change it and using the number of inappropriately labelled categories or articles as validation seems to be a circular argument. In light of this, would you be prepared to review the discussion and your contribution to it? If you choose to reply, please do so on the page where the Cfr discussion is taking place. Thank you. Cottonshirt τ 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My point was, and remains, procedural: that your nomination offered no reason for deleting Category:Police brutality in England while we have so many other similar categories in Category:Police brutality by country. If you have a case to make against categorising any article as police brutality, then that applies whether the article concerned relates to England or Ethiopia.

There is nothing circular about this argument, which is based on consistency. Unless you have identified some special reason why this topic needs to be addressed differently in England is different to other countries, then a discussion should not be focused on England (or on any other single country).

The same point was made by several other editors early in the discussion. The solution is to have a broader discussion about Category:Police brutality by country and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that the solution is to, "have a broader discussion about Category:Police brutality by country and all its subcats". There is in fact such a discussion, here where user Vegaswikian says, "...it would have be wiser to wait for that other discussion to close before nominating more categories". So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Each discussion has someone who says the other discussion needs to close first. I will admit to being unclear as to whether we "should" do sub-cats first or start at the top, and I actually don't understand why it even matters. Irrespective of the order, the point is actually quite straightforward; do we want categories with the word "brutality" in them, yes or no? Misplaced Pages policy on this is quite explicit; we do not. I have yet to see any comment in either discussion that explains why we should contravene the policy on NPOV in category names. Cottonshirt τ 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cricket grounds

No problems with the CfR. I do however have a request to leave all the articles in Category:Football clubs in England. The reason being that I scan that category regularly to ensure that no articles on five-a-side teams have been created (as they are invariably tagged with this category). If they're sorted by county, it becomes a nightmare. Also I find it very useful in general to have all articles of a certain type in a main category. Thanks. Number 5 7 13:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Football clubs in England is tagged with {{diffuse}}, which says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories."

The tag was added on 22 September 2011 to its predecessor Category:English football clubs, which was renamed in January 2012.

I have been tidying and diffusing up the subcats of Category:Sport in England by county, so any overcategorised articles have been diffused to the by-county categories. I have already diffused about half of those which were in Category:Football clubs in England when I started, and plenty were not in there to begin with. If 5-a-side teams are being added here, it will be much easier to spot them if the categ is diffused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It won't be easier to spot them because it will involve looking in 40 or so county categories, rather than 10 or 11 pages of a single category (these articles tend to be copied from existing articles, so will end up in the county categories rather than the England one. I'd be quite happy to remove the diffuse tag if it will stop you! Number 5 7 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will hold off diffusing it for now, but I do think that creating this sort of duplicate categorisation is a bad idea. It won't catch all the inappropriate articles, because editors of that sort of thing are often v lazy about categorisation, so you will still need to monitor the subcats anyway ... and it encourages editors down the path of adding article to parent and grandparent categories. That latter form of over-categorisation is rampant in this area, and it has created terrible clutter on articles. While I am making my way through all these articles, it seems a great pity not to finish the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't feel it's overcategorisation. When I go to a category like Football clubs in England, I expect to find all the clubs, rather than sifting through various sub-categories which may have a slightly different purpose (for example as sub cats of Sport by county or whatever). If it's ok by you, I'll add the removed ones back to the main cat. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not OK by me :(

English football clubs are massively over-categorised, because of a lack of diffusion; for example most of them appear in the "Sport in Countyname" category as well as specific "Countyname footballs clubs". I have just spent over a dozen hours diffusing this mess, and instead of assisting in the long-overdue cleanup, I find someone wanting to undo part of what I have done.

What's the point in cleaning it up if the editors working in the area revert the cleanup? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand removing the Sport in county category if there is a county category (originally there weren't any county football categories, hence the sport ones being ubiquitous. As I said, I think the main category is very useful. Perhaps it might be best to as WP:FOOTY before a mass removal of articles from it? Number 5 7 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the "Countyname footballs clubs" categs are newer, and are likely to be underpopulated. But my point is that even when articles were added to those categs, they were nor removed from "Sport in Countyname". This duplication is so widespread that it is the norm in most counties; it would be easy to get the impression that footy editors were systematically trying to avoid diffusion. You have obviously been monitoring my edits (which is fine), so you will have seen what I have been doing; but apoparently that diffusion is not even worth commenting on.

I disagree with you about the main category; is a bit useless for navigation, because it offers no context and is way too big to monitor for completeness. Your use of it is for maintenance, which is usually a separate function, should be handled by appropriate tracking categories, retain by trying to retain the parent categ as a monster which contains everything from top-of-the-premier-league-clubs to a recently-created amateur side which barely qualifies for its local league. I can see a great case for a cat for all League clubs, or other such grouping of significant teams, but not for something this broad.

Anyway, it's quite clear that my big effort to implement normal categorisation practices is regarded as a nuisance, so I will stop wasting my time with it. Do what you like; I'm abandoning it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

Hi. I'm dropping you this note as a request to help.

I just looked at 30 random CfD pages, and based upon that we seem the be the most common closers (those who determine consensus of discussions) at CfD. (If I have overlooked anyone, it is obviously purely an oversight.)

I think we've all been seeing the difficulties that some editors has been having lately concerning some self-asserted bold edits. And how they may be seen by others as disruptive.

I think that at least some of the trouble could be that while most of use are aware of common practice regarding category pages, we really do not have a unified MoS regarding what a category page should look like or include. And so when someone attempts to edit contrary to that understood common practice, it is seen as disruptive.

I'd like to prevent this from happening now or in the future.

So I'm asking you to join in and help edit Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Category pages to a point where it reflects consensus and common practice as we understand it. And perhaps finding any new consensus as necessary.

This is obviously not exclusive to only us to discuss (so any lurkers out there would be welcome), I merely thought inviting you all would be a good start : )

(This is not because I think we'll all agree. Honestly, I expect that on some things we'll likely disagree. And that - as I think we all expect - will just help make the results of the discussion better and more useful for everyone, and therefore, more reflective of the greater consensus at Misplaced Pages.)

I sincerely hope that you will be able to find the time to help out.

Regardless, thank you for your time, and your continued contributions at CfD - jc37 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I am having an increasingly frustrating dispute with an editor over headings in election and referendum articles, specifically over whether "Result" or "Results" is preferable as the heading for the relevant section. As WikiProject Elections and Referendums has so few active members (at least judging by the responses on the talk page), I thought I'd just ask someone who is involved in election articles for their opinion before this descends any further. Thanks, Number 5 7 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi #57

Thanks for your msg. I seem to remember that this arose in some UK articles, but I can't recall where the discussions took place.

FWIW, my own take is that it depends on context. For example a general election nearly always has multiple results from individual constituencies, and even in the case of a country like Israel with a single constituency, there is a result for each list; so even there, there are results plural.

So while we might say that the result of the Foo General Election was a crashing defeat for the governing Bar Party, any list or table of the voting figures necessarily includes multiple results. For that reason, the plural form is nearly always better for headings.

I say nearly always, because there is one specific circumstance where I felt that a singular result heading was justified: an unopposed by-election, such as St Albans 1943. In that case, we do not have the usual collection of numbers, just a single factoid: elected unopposed.

However, this situation is very rare. It cannot apply to a general election, or to a referendum, becuase in either case there is more than one result. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem; despite our disagreements on some issues, I have a good deal of respect for your opinions.

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments; this is exactly how I have worded articles I have created (e.g. this). The user in question has over the last couple of years been going through election articles and changing them to "Result" (as almost everyone else seems to use "Results", which seems far more natural to me). I found several articles recently and went through and changed them back. This was then reverted with a "no consensus for wholescale unilateral changes" rationale. I have since reverted again (also on the basis that I made the changes using AWB and fixed a few other things at the same time). I have left a message on the user's talk page, but am anticipating a hostile response. If you wouldn't mind commenting, perhaps things will calm down. Thanks, Number 5 7 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my reply got truncated by a premature save, but I have now completed it. Thank for your kind words -- and I think disagreement is good, because it leads to discussion and better conclusions. Most of my favourite editors are those with whom I have had strong disagreements, but have been able to discuss them.

I will take a look at User talk:Lihaas#Blind_reverts_.28for_the_nth_time.29_and_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Unfortunately I was rather annoyed at the time I wrote that... Number 5 7 21:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment is here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call

Good call - I've hated that term ever since the Banbury Guardian invented it several years ago. I was born in Banbury, Oxfordshire. If you want to AfD the head article, let me know so that I can slap a Delete !vote on it. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hey there. Firstly, I seen your message on the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom talk page, and had a look. All looked fine except Swale. Reasonably certain they didn't hold an election, and a quick search on the BBC's Vote 2012/the Swale council website itself, backs this up.

Secondly, I noticed you've been doing some organising of the UK local election pages, that you're an admin, and that you seem to be doing a fair amount of pages re past politics, that I thought you might be able to help us: if you look at Sheffield local elections I've created pages for around a dozen or so pre-reorganisation elections, and have ended up awkwardly inputting them into the navbox, titling the row - and the pages themselves - 'municipal elections'. I have inquired about this before, because I'm stuck between having nothing to base the structure off since there's so few pre-1973 elections (mostly just London - a different kettle of fish altogether), and a rather poor understanding/knowledge of local government - let alone of abolished entities. I largely just used municipal elections because that's what they were called in newspaper clippings I was referencing, and I'm still not entirely convinced if it's correct or even if it is, whether it's applicable to all pre-reorganisation elections. I noticed most pages are called " Council election, " or " City Council election, " and so it doesn't seem that their status as a metropolitan boroughs/districts etc hold much importance, which makes me reticent to title past elections by the entity type ie Sheffield County Borough election, 1972 when the following are just generic Sheffield Council election, 1973, but if I were to just use Sheffield Council election, 1972 I'm not sure if it'd make it clear they're two different (sometime radically, depending on the council) entities.

As someone who presumably knows what they're on about with such things, I'm wondering if you clear things up, and maybe help us figure out the best way for laying them out. Thanks. HeadlightMorning (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Stubs and categories

This issue is under discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD

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.

FYI, WP:SFD is closed and WP:CFD is the new venue for stub templates and categories. See the notice at the top of the SFD page, and the discussion on the SFD talk page (to which CFD was alerted at Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Discussion_relevant_to_this_page, and on other occasions). Bencherlite 11:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that SFD was closed, and supported its closure.

However the nominations were headlined for categories, but listed templates.

We need to figure out how to handle this at CfD, so I have re-closed the discussion. Please let's discuss it at WT:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Our of interest, in the meantime, where do people wanting to nominate stub templates go? SFD is closed, the instructions on the TFD page say "go to CFD", the discussion at WT:SFD came down in favour of moving both stub categories and stub templates to CFD, and now you've just shut that route down because you want to reopen the discussion and the consensus reached there. Or am I missing something? And what about the CFD stub templates discussions on June 13 - are you going to shut those down as well? Not that I have any particular love of stubs, templates or categories but it seems strange for you to act unilaterally like this. If your concern is the heading of each discussion, well let's just change the heading! Bencherlite 12:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD, and continued the discussion there. I don't want to revisit the decision; I want to ensure that it is properly implemented, so that we don't have discussions about non-existent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision was to move stub template discussions to CFD not TFD. Your WT:CFD discussion says "CFD is for categories not templates" and finishes "Should CFD be reserved for discussion of stub categories, with the stub templates handled at WP:TFD". How is that not an attempt to revisit the decision to move stub template discussions to CFD? I'm still puzzled. Perhaps you could clarify at WT:CFD. Bencherlite 12:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, please centralise the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Implementing_the_merger_of_SFD_to_CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pointless closure of stubs for discussion

I submitted those stubs for discussion to the categories page because the stubs venue was closed and it was decided that they should go their. I voted to move them to templates myself but that is not what the majority wanted. I don't think that was an appropriate closure of the submissions personally but I have better things to do than to argue that point. Personally I think that was in very poor form but when you figure out how you want to handle them let me know. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, I am sure you acted in good faith making those nominations, and I am sorry that you think my closure was in poor form. I was acting to try to head off a procedural mess which has been caused by the incomplete implementation of the decision to move stub discussions to CFD.

My concern is that a discussion headlined Category:US-business-bio-1690s-stub (when there never was a Category:US-business-bio-1690s-stub) is so misleading that it disrupts discussion.

It is not your fault that the discussion ended up presented that way, because I am sure that you were using the existing templates ... but I hope you can see that the result is misleading.

Wherever stub templates are to be discussed, we need a procedure which avoids absurdities such as having discussions headlined by the title of a non-existent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In fairness this is exactly why I thought they should be submitted at TFD. Because they are templates, the infrastructure of the venues including Twinkle and the venues recognize them as such and because I knew that we were going to be stuck in a catch 22 situation like this. Your right on the category naming too that was part of why I submitted the groups of templates for discussion. Either way I'm not going to waste my time trying to submit these and help clean up this stuff for a while until everything is sorted out. I'm going to be out of town for a couple weeks and not really able to edit anyway so hopefully it will be sorted out by the time I get back. Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Moves of lists of peerages

Hello, there. I've just noticed a few moves you have made, no doubt to avoid that dreaded "British Isles" phrase... It seems you've left the job half done, however; it would be appropriate for all the pages in {{UK Peerages}} to match (and then for the links in the template to be updated). Unless there is some other reason for the discrepancy?

I have edited very little in the last few months, but I am trying to make a return now. Perhaps I'll finally get a few things done in SBS; the guidelines have been languishing in limbo, and I feel a bit uncomfortable linking to them... Waltham, The Duke of 15:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: Several of the templates included in Category:British peerage templates would also have to be adapted, for the sake of consistency. (In case you are wondering why I am not doing it myself, I don't really agree with the changes, though I do not feel strongly enough about this to make a fuss.) Waltham, The Duke of 22:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work! Monkeyboycandyman (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi BrownHairedGirl, could you move Edinburgh North and Leith (Scottish Parliament constituency) to Edinburgh Northern and Leith (Scottish Parliament constituency) in line with the name change which happened last year? I can't do this myself as the latter page is a redirect and will probably need deleted for the move to take place. Valenciano (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Valenciano

I could do that, but I don't think that it is a good idea.

The principle adopted at WP:UKPC for Westminster constituencies has always been to have one article per constituency name, and one constituency name per article ... because it's the only way of keeping a coherent track of the constituencies.

I strongly urge that the same principle be adopted for Scottish constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in other words, we'd be better off creating a new page for Edinburgh Northern and Leith (Scottish Parliament constituency)? The main problem here is that it seems to be a continuation of Edinburgh North and Leith with the name change having happened to distinguish it from the Westminster constituency, with which it is no longer coterminous. Does the principle still apply in those cases? Valenciano (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest a new page.

For Westminster constituencies, we have applied that principle even where the boundaries are unchanged; the only exceptions have been when the names have been translated, as with Anglesey and Western Isles.

There are 2 reasons for this:

Avoiding anachronisms. If The article name is changed, then editors and readers will think that candidate before the name change actually stood in the new-name constituency. E.g. Anne Dana was the 2003 SNP candidate in Edinburgh North and Leith; she was not the candidate in Edinburgh Northern and Leith.
Names are the only fixed part of a constituency. In practice, constituencies are a moving target, as in this fictitious example: "Foo West" is renamed "Foo North West" without boundary changes, but at the next review "Foo North West" has changed boundaries which move it more into the North, and that the review after that it is renamed "Foo North". If we applied a no-name-change-without-boundary changes rule, we would end up with them all in the same article, which would be v silly.

In this case, Edinburgh Northern and Leith has new boundaries, so a new article also marks a substantive cahnge.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's great thanks. I agree that for consistency if nothing else, creating a new page would be best. Will get on it now. Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles

As someone active in this area, I'd like you give input to a thread I've opened on "Politics in the British Isles". If the article is to exist then we may as well make a fist of improving it. Unfortunately, I think that means blowing it up and starting again. I've proposed an outline for re-starting the article on a firmer and more reasonable footing. --RA (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Irish peer

I recall that you have edited some Irish peers article. I'm not so good on the different office and the references for them. I'm working on a draft of Charles Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont here. Is there any way you can assist on this or suggest another editor is you don't have time or resources? TIA ww2censor (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)