Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:14, 18 November 2012

Say stuff here.--Mike Selinker 12:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

CfD comment

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Homosexuality_and_religion

Occurs to me that since I mentioned you, I should drop you a note : ) - jc37 21:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

works by period

lol you faked me out by relisting in parts. The edit conflict I got when typing my restatement, was a surprise : )

(A quick re-edit and pasted anyway : ) - jc37 02:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have never figured out how to relist in one go. I will eventually. Meanwhile, I've closed all the March discussions I can. Do the rest?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  lol no worries. just struck me funny (partially cause I should have known there was "more to come" : )

  And I'll give them all a quick run through to see, but I thought I looked them over last night and closed what I could. (I was waiting on a few old fooians partially because I wanted to check over the group noms (more time than i wanted to spend last night), and also because the discussions seem to never end : )

  Also, I've updated my comments in a few, please feel free to check them out if there is anything worth responding to. - jc37 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well, when you do, I'm sure BrownHairedGirl will give us some more to think about.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  Found it and closed it. I hope others have better luck than I did in trying to figure the multiple school one out (could be I'm just confused : ) - jc37 03:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sounds good. There's a couple more on April 1 and 2 if you want them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  (quick update) Well, for the 1st, I'd rather not close the redirect/dab one for various reasons. And for the 2nd, Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital seems ambiguous per the hatnotes at Christ's Hospital. So I'll wait for more discussion there. I'll be working my way through closing other CfDs in a moment. - jc37 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, I thought there was enough consensus on April 14 to rename Category:Historical eras in popular culture to "Historical fiction by period of setting". Any scope to add that into your close? – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy

I haven't been much active there recently, so I'm a bit rusty on the process. but to give you some info: User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick was recently blocked by User:Elen of the Roads. And (mostly) unrelated to that, I struck my comments due to some comments on my talk page. So at this point I don't know what the status of those speedy noms should be. - jc37 03:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• The PRC categories seem to be in flux, so I'm inclined to leave those alone for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Personal attack by User:85.227.208.133 removed by Ibicdlcod (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

April 2012

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Misplaced Pages has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Misplaced Pages articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Misplaced Pages articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you.

When was WP:ENGVAR withdrawn as a policy? That was a really bad decision 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you believe so, you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV. However, you should see this nomination first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

CfDs

I dislike elitism inherently. To clim that Eton should have a special exemption strikes me as wrong, and to give the special exemption to Eton in a country of less than 60 million and to deney it to the premier school of a country with over twice that number of people is to base categorizing on unjustifiable criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) You are absolutely entitled to your views. However, I agree with Mike and believe that you could have made your point across with more WP:AGF. That being said, the general purpose of the rename is to make the category follow the general naming conventions that apply to other Pakistan-related "Foo alumni" categories. I have given my perspective on the issue at the CfD. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• (User page stalker here to give a complement) Btw, you have an interesting user page :) Mar4d (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of commercial failures in software for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of commercial failures in software is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of commercial failures in software until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

School alumni categories

Hi Mike

I see that the South African Old Boys CfD has closed as rename to existing "alumni of Foo" convention.

You had suggested renaming them all to "People educated at", but I wondered why stop at S. Africa? It seems to me to be odd to apply American terminology to former British colonies, so I wonder why not switch to the neutral PEA format for all the Commonwealth countries? I see Category:Alumni by secondary school in Zimbabwe, Category:Alumni by secondary school in India, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Nigeria, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Kenya, Category:Alumni by secondary school in Pakistan, and Category:Alumni by secondary school in Malawi as being doable in one big nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why not indeed. That was the proposal I made a while back, if I recall. Go ahead and propose it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Works about race

Category:Works about race, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

category deletion

Is there any way to rename a category so that the history is preserved? otherwise it seems that you lose the history of who edited the category/how it changed over time, once it is renamed (a similar thing doesn't happen with articles). Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not that I'm aware of.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are ways to get at least part of the story. If a category is moved, the first edit summary in the page history generally records its previous name. You can also often use "What links here" to find the discussion that resulted in a move. Given either of these, you can then use "What links here" on the OLD name to find any discussions about that one.

The only way to be able to see the full history that you're asking for is to become an Admin. Short of that, feel free to ask me or another friendly admin to look things up for you if there is something in particular that you are interested in. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what seems odd - we go out of our way to preserve article history, but we toss category history and make it hard to find. I suppose this just a limitation in the[REDACTED] software? --KarlB (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "Misplaced Pages software". The platform is really MediaWiki, but the particular configuration deployed is that for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's setup is rather simplified, compared to many MediaWiki installations, to cope with the server load for the high page view volume. Many commonplace MediaWiki features aren't installed or available here.

In particular, Misplaced Pages's culture is historically rather anti-category. Most editors don't understand how they work and misuse them, on the assumption that they're a more ontologically-defining system than they're really capable of. This leads to tensions with projects such as DBpedia, which are smart about categories but hitting the limits of MediaWiki's model, and WP itself where categories named after major individuals (Trevithick and Botticelli for starters) are regularly deleted for some half-baked understanding of "policy".

MediaWiki doesn't track history for category membership. It can be made to, but it's a fairly major extension change (it has to stretch the DB data model a bit too). Few people need or bother with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Loughor railway viaduct

The line over it opened to public traffic in 1852

Brunel died in 1859

Why do you claim it was built in 1860?

This Is... is a low-budget local newspaper that I wouldn't trust to give the right details for a village fete. I'm organising a festival in South Wales - they didn't!

So is this either not used by the original line (somehow), a replacement viaduct (possible, but unmentioned), the line date is wrong, or else the bridge is older than 1860. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's the source I found. You're in South Wales? Maybe you can find a better source there?--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories by time period

Hi Mike, is there anything else I can do to clarify Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30#Category:Categories by time period? I seem to have put everyone off! – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than muddy the waters at the CFD, which is messy enough already, let me float this with you. What should be the top category for each thing? (a) Some categories by period hold sub-cats by year/ decade/ century (/millennium) as well as locally-appropriate eras; see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 29#Category:History of Brazil by time. (b) Some by date hold year--millemmium as well as "era" (or "period"). (c) Some by year hold decade/ century (/millennium).

IMHO, (c) is confusing and should be changed to either (a) or (b). I'm thinking of raising either a test case or a WT:CFD discussion. So I wasn't going to harmonise all eras/periods before that. – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To chime in. I'm convinced that most by time categories should be by century/and/or year for several reason. As a general rule you do not need anything below century other then by year categories when they can be populated. The parent categories would include by millennium when justified. When you have something that can logically be grouped, as and example WWII, that could be added as a subcategory of the 20th century if needed. I think that both of you have some resistance to including century categories in an all inclusive by year one, but does doing this really hurt anything? No matter which direction this goes, we need to remember that navigation to nearby years should by template. I think in most cases using by era or period can be confusing unless there is support for a specif start and end date. Otherwise they are problematic. Oh, at one time I dropped a note on one of the year wikiprojects and asked about this. As I recall there was no response. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up some of the consequent cleanup for categories "by era". You probably already know about the optional parameter in {{Cfm}} for the section name in group nominations, but I thought I'd drop a friendly reminder as some recent noms have missed it (e.g. ) -- perhaps TW doesn't handle it? – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sure it does. See Category:Swiss_mathematicians_by_era.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That seems to make my point: it says

{{Cfm full|day=26|month=May|year=2012|1=|target=Swiss mathematicians}} ,

but to link to the group discussion it should be

{{Cfm full|day=26|month=May|year=2012|1=Categories by era|target=Swiss mathematicians}}

– Fayenatic London (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation. KarlB (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Friendly notice

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37

As you were one of the co-noms for me for adminship, I thought it only polite that I should drop you a note about this. - jc37 09:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Um wow. While I guess this isn't the first time others have said nice things about me (or rather what things I do), and (hopefully) won't be the last, and several have already been so kind in the nom, but wow. That was something to read. It was exceedingly nice of you to say. I guess when those whom one so respects says such things... Well anyway, check out doczilla's talk page where I noted such about you. - jc37 11:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool beans. Good luck with the request.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bridges by decade

A few minutes ago, I deleted about 20–30 empty 'bridges-by-decade' categories that were listed at WP:CFD/W. In light of the April discussion, what should happen to the remainder of Category:Bridges by decade? Thanks, -- Black Falcon 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm going to nominate them straightaway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just an unintended issue with some category creations --summary refers to a cheerleaders discussion rather than ... thought I would tell you rather than having the problem get larger if you are about to create more. Good Ol’factory 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you. -- Black Falcon 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, please see WT:Categories for discussion#Category:Bridges by century. I started commenting before I realised that it was your work. Perhaps there is a good explanation... ah, I see there was a CFD in April. Ah well, I'll leave you to speak for yourself. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some things...

• User_talk:Black_Falcon#Some_things_to_consider

Your thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Boats by designer

Category:Boats by designer, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sincere Request

• User:Black Falcon
• User:BrownHairedGirl
• User:The Bushranger
• User:Fayenatic london
• User:Good Olfactory
• User:Jc37
• User:Mike Selinker
• User:Timrollpickering
• User:Vegaswikian

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 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bachman & Cummings albums

Category:Bachman & Cummings albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Emirates

• diff

I've seen some wacky diffs in the past, but this one left me confused. They're the exact same spelling? What did I miss? - jc37 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing. It's a habit that I eliminate those annoying red squares when I see them, and apparently I just reflexively saved it without any other changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'm confused. when I look at the before and after, the spelling is the same. (and what red squares?

incidentally in case of misunderstanding, I was thinking that[REDACTED] did something odd (malfunctioned) in marking identical words as changed somehow. - jc37 04:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's all me. Sometimes text copied from other places creates an untransferrable red square that mucks with category conversion. I habitually remove those. There's nothing to worry about here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. I can't see the red square. Guessing it's something technical.

Sorry about bothering you with this, I was just rubbing my eyes and trying to figure out how Misplaced Pages broke : ) - jc37 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just me is broke.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(checks pockets) me too. Guess I'll have to settle for being rich in joy, poor in money : ) - jc37 07:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback!

Category:Lethbridge Suger Kings alumni

Should Category:Lethbridge Suger Kings alumni really renamed to Category:Lethbridge Sugar Kings? And Category:Granby Bisons alumni to Category:Granby Bisons? (The former is now at WP:CFD/W) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nope, just mistakes on my part. "players" should be at the end of both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

DRV

Whatever your knowledge of the background, might be helpful at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2#Category redirects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Songs about trucks

Category:Songs about trucks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion:English independent ministers of the Rebellion period

I notice you closed the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 28 - thank you. Does the rename also include the other categories mentioned in the discussion, such as Category:English presbyterians of the Rebellion period? There seemed to be consensus concerning those as well. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What's going on? You didn't reply to this message. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just missed it. You can nominate the others on Speedy using the C2C criterion. Link to the original discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought of that - but it looks like there was consensus there. Can't you just perform the move? StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There was, but they were never tagged. Tag them for a Speedy nomination and it will likely sail through.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Done. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Islamophobia

JonFlaune has asked for a deletion review of Category:Islamophobia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What was the hurry? Has islamophobia ceased to exist? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You can read my close if you'd like. That's likely all I will say on this page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I read it, I have to say I had no intentions to "challenge" you. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Coolness.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider?

Hi Mike, you have just closed Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_21#Category:Songs_about_poverty Songs about poverty as no consensus. Do you want to reconsider before I appeal against your decision? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• No. You've got a couple of delete votes, a keep, and an "at worst listify." Seems like a classic "no consensus" to me. Feel free to DRV it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As an administrator you should know it's not a vote. What we have is the nomination to delete, 2 outright deletes, one "at worst listify" and one contributor who seems to be totally confused. I also note your amending comment about pruning - as there is not one song that is actually about "poverty" in the category, are you suggesting I should empty the category?. Finally, I note from categories you have created that you are in favour of songs by theme. Please reconsider so I don't have to study how to appeal! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, let me save you the studying: go to WP:DRV and enter the category there. So if you're upset, DRV exists as a place where you can get a fair hearing. The pruning comment should be treated conservatively; I'm going to assume a broad definition of poverty here. As for whether I am "in favor of" songs by theme, I've created thousands of categories, most through CFD. As far as I know, the only songs by theme categories I've created were Category:Songs about automobiles and Category:Songs about trucks, which were created to subcategorize Category:Songs about transport after the category was renamed. You can find anything you want in the categories I've ruled on, so if you want to make a bias claim, at least consider all the evidence.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of taking your "pruning" comment literally. I shall consider the whole matter later when I have more time to consider. You may find User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme illuminating where I started listing what the lyrics were about in the category (until I suffered from a poverty of pointlessness, thinking it was already a dead category!). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As it wasn't deleted I am not sure a deletion review would be appropriate. As it is no consensus there is no reason why it can't be listed again. I assume you have no objections to that? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

None whatsoever.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited List of English List A limited-overs cricketers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My Fair Lady (Broadway cast recording) - NOT a (movie) soundtrack

I saw your reversion on my "soundtrack" edit. The album infobox only allows 12 words in the type field, one of which is "soundtrack." If you don't use one of those 12 words, the system puts the article into Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, where an editor like me will change it to one of those 12 words. So if not "soundtrack," which of those words do you think applies to an original cast recording? Soundtrack seems the closest to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• One more note: Nearly every album in Category:Cast recordings uses the "soundtrack" designation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Soundtrack" refers to the sound recording part of a motion picture. Originally it was physically part of a print of the film, read optically by the projector - I assume these things are all digital nowadays. This is not a motion picture, although one was made of the same show. If we don't want to preserve this distinction, I suppose I have no leg to stand on. BUT why can't we just add a "Cast Album" designation to the list - or even use "unknown" or leave it blank? This is an encyclopedia, not a database system, and it seems ridiculous to insert inaccurate or approximate information (as we do sometimes in databases) just in order to "fill a field". If we want to group soundtrack albums and cast albums, then why can't we change "soundtrack" to something like "soundtrack and cast albums"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable position. It sounds like we should bring it up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. "Cast" would seem a welcome option, but I can't unilaterally make that decision (nor would I know how to code it). For now, I'm going to make it the unassailable "Studio album" with a Longtype of "Original cast album," since it needs one of the field's parameters for it to stop reporting an error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would it help to change similar articles (those specifically about particular recordings of particular stage shows) to match, pending a difinitive decision? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah. Let's see what others have to say first. I have started the discussion here. Feel free to weigh in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You called, and we came running. Is there a bot that can apply this to cast albums in the musical theatre category tree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to help. I wouldn't trust a tricky task like that to a bot, but feel free to seek one out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:MetroStars

Category:MetroStars, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Category backlinks

Hi Mike, may I recommend you to check for backlinks when deleting categories? e.g. Category:Surname clarification templates was linked from a template documentation page. Please excuse me if you do check but simply overlooked that one. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

See this one as it involves your name. Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Actresses

I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Actresses. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Immortality in fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bloodshot and Captain Scarlet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Bobmouldsilverage-e13389992789021-300x300.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Bobmouldsilverage-e13389992789021-300x300.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season

Hi there. You closed this CfD about Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season a couple of months ago, and you said "The split has merit to the commenters, so if someone is inclined to do so, go ahead." I forgot all about the CfD, and now that it was brought to my attention through my watchlist, I thought it was time to split the category, but I were wondered what would be the way forward when performing such a split. Is it the right way to create the new categories (Category:UEFA Champions League clubs 2012–13 season and Category:UEFA Europa League clubs 2012–13 season, and recategorise the articles and then leave the Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season empty? --Mentoz86 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Crescent City Blues

Hello! Your submission of Crescent City Blues at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sasata (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Crescent City Blues

On 6 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crescent City Blues, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Johnny Cash took most of the lyrics of "Folsom Prison Blues" from Gordon Jenkins' song "Crescent City Blues"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crescent City Blues. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Starship albums

Category:Starship albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alice Academy characters

Category:Alice Academy characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Classical and jazz radio people

Thanks for closing this CfD at long last. Although you closed as "rename to ...people", you actually entered a rename to "...presenters" on the Working page. () I'll remedy this by adding the People cats as head categories, and looking for any non-presenters; the end result will be less work than sub-catting as you had suggested. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whoops. Sounds like you have it under control, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record:  Done and I'm very glad you prgrammed it that way! 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be a barnstar for this

This CFD had become such a massive wall of text that I wondered whether anyone would ever close it. Rumours persist of several admins having lost the will to live after trying to read it all, so I reckoned it would probably languish for years.

I looked for a suitable barnstar, but I could find nothing which was designed to acknowledge a herculean labour. So the best I can do is to offer plaintext congratulations on closing it, and having apparently survived the ordeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do seem to still be alive. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps categories

Hey there. Now that all of these Vancouver Whitecaps categories have been merged, I just want to confirm with you that it is ok to go ahead and recreate Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC players to house Vancouver Whitecaps FC players. We now have Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players which houses Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players, and Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984) players, which houses Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984) players. Because I will be recreating a category with similar content to what pre-existed, I just wanted to get the green light from the closing admin, as required. Also, one category was missied during the merge. Category:Vancouver 86ers (USL A-League) players should be merged to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players. Can you handle this here, or do I have to go through the whole CfD process for that? – Nurmsook! 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've recreated it. I should not have merged that one, as it's a completely different team. If anyone has objections, they'll bring them up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Perfect, thanks. Would you be able to merge Category:Vancouver 86ers (USL A-League) players to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010) players, as it was missed and that is where it belongs. It is the only remaining category that needs to be merged. – Nurmsook! 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

CFD: GAA Clubs in County Londonderry

Hi. You recently closed the CFD discussion on the above topic (link here for reference. One quick question that wasn't made clear in your closing. There was also a proposal in the same discussion on renaming Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Londonderry to Category:Gaelic football competitions in County Derry, can that proposal be clarified in the close? Be aware thought that that proposal answer may be complicated by the fact that the original author behind the proposal created the second category before awaiting a decision and is subject to a separate CFD here. Looks like there was some cross over of proposals among the different discussions and I didn't spot it in the original one when I nominated that newly created category for deletion. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 00:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Not sure about that. I will take a look.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not necessarily looking for a firm answer, just a clarification as to whether it is included in the close or if it's deferred to the other discussion currently dragging underway. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:PERM/A

Mr. Selinker, If you are not fully occupied with your other many tasks that keep you busy, would you mind please commenting on my request at WP:PERM/A? It would mean more either way coming from you. Thank you mate. Cheers! T.I.M 02:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you're asking me to do here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've seen your work, and you're just the kind of guy I would respect way more than another admin if they chose to deny my request at PERM. If you don't want to though, I completely understand, and am sorry to have bugged you. T.I.M 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, what I mean is, I'm happy to help, but I really don't know what you're asking me to do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh! Well, I was curious if you would look at and pass or fail my request for the Autopatrolled flag at the WP:PERM/A page. I must sound like an idiot for not having actually said that. T.I.M 03:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, done.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much! Your word alone carries a good deal of weight with me, and I'm sure it will with any other admin who closes my request. I appreciate your assistance! T.I.M 03:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I hate to keep bugging you, but I think I'm doing a terrible job communicating. I am looking for an administrator to fulfill that request by  Doneing or  Not doneing it, and assigning the userright if it it checks out with them. Is that still OK with you?

• I guess not. I don't really understand that process. Someone else will, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

BHG Talkback

Replied again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Navajo stubs template

Hi Mike. You closed the CfD on Navajo Nation stubs as no consensus, which seemed fair enough for the category. However, there seemed to me to be agreement as part of this discussion to rename the template {{Navnat-stub}} to {{Navajo-stub}}. Would it be okay to go ahead with this rename (leaving redirect)? Or should I reopen a seperate discussion? --Qetuth (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, do that. I'll amend the close.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kuwaiti actresses CfD

Hi Mike

Please may I ask you to review your closure of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 19#Category:Kuwaiti_actresses. I have two concerns with it:

1. You closed as deleted, even though a) the !votes were split evenly between keep and deleted; b) I made a substantive and unanswered argument about how gender is indeed defining for actors
2. As set out in detail here, the category was redirected and emptied on October 15 by User:Bearcat, immediately after he had commented at the Cfd. This had the effect of both removing the CFD tag from the category, and removing the navigational links to it from articles. That means that although the CfD remained open for a further 13 days, it had been effectively hidden.

Since you closed as "merge (already done)", I'm a little puzzled why you didn't investigate how it came to be "already done". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• You're right. I did not see that it was done out of process. I'll open it back up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mike. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Million Dollar Quartet members

Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television series that changed networks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cfd close

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_19#Category:Aggrotech

Nice one there. I thought about suggesting that today when looking over open discussions and came back upon this one. - jc37 01:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Seemed the only logical approach. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Political Prisoners

Mike, I am considering posting a deletion review for the political prisoner-related categories, but would like to discuss with you first.

In the September 12 discussion, the votes to keep these categories outnumbered the delete/merge votes by a ratio or 2 to 1, so I assumed that you would have some exceptional rationale for merging. However, when explaining your decision, you cited only the example of Pussy Riot to illustrate that there were NPOV concerns around who should populate the category of political prisoners in Russia. Other examples of American, Israeli, and Irish prisoners were offered in the discussion to further illustrate that the classification of political prisoner is sometimes controversial (all these countries are democracies; no one could provide evidence of controversial classifications in China, North Korea or the USSR). However, the purpose of a CfD debate is to discuss the category, not the people within it. These are two separate issues, and the question of which individuals should populate a category should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is my position that, if reliable sources are in strong agreement that a given country has political prisoners, then a category should exist to identify them.

Moreover, I find it troubling that all categories for political prisoners were deleted simply because people couldn't agree on whether the label should be extended Pussy Riot. There is no connection between Pussy Riot and the political prisoners in China or the former Soviet Union. Whereas sources may disagree on whether Pussy Riot's members are political prisoners, there is resounding agreement in the highest quality reliable sources that the category of political prisoners does exist in China (and elsewhere). I'm wondering if you could explain why you believe that the controversy around a handful of individual cases should result in the deletion of every single category related to political prisoners.

In your decision, you wrote that the Pussy Riot example is proof that "the number of times we'll agree on classification will be less than the times we can." I don't believe the evidence supports this conclusion. Maybe that's true of prisoners in democracies, but not of authoritarian government. Whereas there is disagreement around Pussy Riot, there is no such disagreement around a single one of the 16 people currently listed in Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China. You also suggested that we could adopt an approach where a third-party organization (like Amnesty International) issues the classification of political prisoners for us. But that's already what we're doing—every person named in the category for Chinese political prisoners is described as such in reliable sources, and I cannot find a single reliable source that debates that classification for even one of them. There are databases from reputable research organizations listing tens of thousands of Chinese political prisoners. So, there are plenty of sources that can be used to make this classification for us. Would this knowledge impact your decision? If not, could you elaborate on your rationale? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 23:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's probably obvious that I used Pussy Riot as an example, rather than a litmus test. You are misinterpreting what I said about Amnesty, though. I meant that categories with sourcing in the titles, such as Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience, may be the way to go. The political prisoners category require Wikipedians to agree on inclusion criteria, which I think is not very likely based on the discussion, but the Amnesty only requires Amnesty to declare it. That should give you enough information on my position to decide whether to put it on WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Humunculous tries arguing that "authoritarian governments" are a different case to "democracies".
    This is another use of subjective concepts; how exactly do we decide which countries are democracies and which are not? Or which are authoritarian? Both those concepts are attributes which may be present in various differing strengths. They are not binary switches, and hard cases make bad law.
    BTW, Humunculous's favourite database on Chinese political prisoners is the Congressional-Executive Commission on China's Political Prisoner Database, which he has cited as a source for every Chinese person who he has categorised as a political prisoner of China. The US Congress and Executive are hardly an impartial or independent body in assessing China, and it is very troubling to see it used as the basis for a category which does not attribute the judgement. Category:People labelled as political prisoners by the United States Congressional-Executive Commission on China would attribute the judgement, as required by WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think there is a difference between democracies and authoritarian states, and we decide which is which by following the reliable sources. Had I known earlier that you do not think there is a difference between democracy and authoritarianism, I would have spent so much time trying to reach agreement with you; our world views are clearly irreconcilable. So long. Homunculus (duihua) 06:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make my talk page a rehash of the CfD. If someone wants to take it up for redress, that option is available.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Homunclus says "you do not think there is a difference between democracy and authoritarianism". I didn't write that, and I don't believe that.

I just don't believe that we live in a simple black-and-white world, with good guys on one side and bad guys on the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

You usually turn me down when I ask you about these things, but I thought I would at least ask again : )

Any chance you might be interested this year? It looks like several arbcom members won't be running again, and so far not many seem to be running.

You are obviously well respected by most who have interacted with you. Any possibility? - jc37 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nope. But thanks for thinking of me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  lol, nod, kinda guessed, but I wanted to ask : ) - jc37 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On a different note, I've nominated you for some free merchandise. I hope you win : ) - jc37 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Executions in China

(I will notify BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) of the discussion here.)

I think that BrownHairGirl inadvertently proposed (and I'll explain why below) Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China for merging to Category:People executed by China. The reason is simple: while it is true that People's Republic of China has been moved/merged with China, the problem is that right now, Category:People executed by China category refers to all executions throughout Chinese history. (See the other subcategories -- e.g., Category:People executed by the Han Dynasty and Category:People executed by the Tang Dynasty.) Executions by the People's Republic of China therefore should specifically remain as a subcategory thereof as a historical differentiation. If there is a relatively easy way to undo the merge, I would hope that it would be undone. --Nlu (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't see an objection of that nature, so I don't think unilaterally putting it back makes sense to me. I would suggest nominating it for a split back into its two categories and see if people buy in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nominated. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Nlu kindly notified me of this request. I agree with Mike that since no objection was made at the time, it would be wrong to revert the merge. However, Nlu makes a good case for a split, so a new nomination seems appropriate. I see that the discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 18#Category:People_executed_by_China, and I will add my comments there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)