Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:51, 9 January 2017

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.

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Happy New Year!

Dear BrownHairedGirl,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

You're Invited!

{{WPW Referral}}

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Talk back

(second response)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, BrownHairedGirl! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot / watchlist

Greetings. Is there any way of hiding Cat-a-lot edits from my watchlist? A huge amount of them appeared today, and it's a bit distracting. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there isn't any way to hide them. Most of his recategorising is done use AWB where I can mark edits as minor, but some are much easier with Catalot. The good news is that they all whoosh by in one quick blast. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries! It's just a bit of extra skim-reading to make sure I don't dismiss non-automated edits amongst them, heh. Best wishes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello BrownHairedGirl,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Misplaced Pages.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	“Nollaig Shona agus Athbhliain faoi Mhaise Duit.” Quis separabit? 05:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

chrissy greetings

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Hi, I know it probably falls out of your area of interests on Misplaced Pages but I wondered if I could possibly ask you to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State and give your comments as an admin? It's a little-edited topic and, considering the lack of third-party feedback in the article, I'm worried that the confrontation could escalate. Seasons greetings, —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brigade Piron, and Happy New Year.

I have taken a look at the dispute there, and have formed some preliminary views. There is clearly quite a large divide between the two sides, and the issues are big, so I am going to sleep on this and have another look tomorrow. Then I will respond properly.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion#Fate of CFDS. Armbrust 09:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Boggle. Thanks for the notification, Armbrust.

I thought the silly season was in August? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Handball templates

Hey, why do you add "Men's/Women's handball" to it? It's clear from the article of the athlet what sport we are talking about and all is linked within the template. Seems useless to me (and blow up the template) and all those changes were made without a discussion (or?). I reverted a few before i saw you made a mass change... Juse seems odd to me. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kante4

Please can you link to the pages you are talking about?

Or at least some of them?

I really don't know what you are referring to.

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Kante4

I just checked your contribs, and find these 41 edits by you, in which you somehow reverted the changes I had made to those templates. (It's odd that you somehow did so in a way which gave me no automatic notification, since I would have been automatic notified if you had used rollback or undo).

Anyway, to the substance:

1. Those changes did not "blow up" any template. They added two words to them, which did not disrupt their format or integrity.
2. The reason I added those words was because it seemed bizarre to me that the templates did not indicate what sport or gender was involved, and I could see no reason for omitting that info -- there was no space constraint.
3. Unfortunately, it is often not clear what sport is involved, because a significant minority of sportspeople play more than one sport. Even if it was only one article which fitted that description, it would be worth havi g the info just for that one article -- because it imposes no cost on the other articles.
4. The factor which prompted me to make the changes was that I was categorising the articles by gender. AS with most ball games, men and women compete separately in handball, so gender is a defining attribute of the player. However, a huge swathe of articles on handball players did not explicitly state the gender of the player -- not in the body text, not in any infobox, nor category, nor template. I then spotted that the gender must be indicated by the navbox, but I was astonished to see that the navbox did not display this info. I could see no reason to limit it, so per WP:BOLD I added it.

So now, I ask you -- in what way has any of these templates been improved by your removal of this information? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

PS An example, here are two navboxes:

v t e France squad – 2012 European Championship – 9th place
3 Dancette 4 Njitam 5 Ayglon 7 Pineau 8 Mendy 9 Baudouin 12 Pradel 14 Gnabouyou 15 Bruneau 16 Darleux 17 Dembélé 19 Goiorani 20 Tervel 22 Piejos 24 Signaté 64 Lacrabère Coach: Krumbholz

v t e France squad – 2012 European Championship – 11th place
2 Fernandez 3 Dinart 4 Barachet 5 G. Gille 6 B. Gille 8 Narcisse 9 Joli 11 Honrubia 12 Karaboué 13 Karabatić 16 Omeyer 18 Accambray 19 Abalo 20 Sorhaindo 21 Guigou 25 Detrez 27 Bingo Head Coach: Onesta

They refer to separate competitions. The first is the women's competition, and the second is the men's -- yet bizarrely, both describe the competition in the same way. And neither even indicates which sport is involved. (The first one is Template:France squad 2012 European Women's Handball Championship, where you reverted by change. The second is Template:France squad 2012 European Men's Handball Championship, where I self-reverted back to your version for demonstration purposes.

Now, by way of contrast, here is a navbox as changed by me:

v t e France squad – Men's handball – 2016 European Championship – 5th place
5 Remili 6 Nyokas 8 Narcisse 11 Honrubia 12 Gérard 13 N. Karabatić 14 Mahé 16 Omeyer 18 Abalo 20 Sorhaindo 21 Guigou 22 L. Karabatic 23 Fabregas 25 Derot 27 Dipanda 28 Porte 29 Kounkoud Coach: Onesta

Note that the event is clearly identifiable from the heading. Why would you want to remove such clarity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The gender is given in the article, infobox, lead (both link to current national/club team) and category (male/female handball player) (and if not, i add them when i go around after big tournaments). So there is no need for having it on the template(s), which is the same in more sports aswell. Never was someone doubting it or anything, you are the first. With your version, there is just more text at the template title, which do "blow" it up, imo. Even the template links to the male/female team. It's just not needed... Or, maybe just add "France women's/men's squad" if you need it. Like i said, no one was ever questioning it. Kante4 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at other sports aswell, and not a problem for anyone again. Just my two cents. Kante4 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, did you realy read what I wrote?

As I wrote at length above, dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of the articles do not indicate gender in text or infobox. They do so by category only because I added it, but no article should carry specific info only in a category.

What you mean that this will "blow up" a template? In English, that phrase means "explode" or break. Nothing you say gives any indication that these templates are exploded or broken. The addition of two words does not significantly expand the text.

The fact that the template links to the gender and sport is no substitute for the failure to display either the gender or sport. The reader should not have to follow a link to identify its content.

Again, I ask you -- how exactly is the reader helped by omitting these two words? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

When i visit an article about a player, i know if it is male or female, so a male will not play for the female team. Logical to me and never heard negative from anyone, so not a problem. But ok... Kante4 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, this is a very odd discussion, because you appear to be simply ignoring the points I make. For example, many of the articles do not identify the gender of the player. They should, but many of them do not.

So gain, I ask you -- how exactly is the reader helped by omitting the two words which identify both gender and sport? How exactly do your reverts help the reader? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, I have indeed looked at other sports. Here are a few examples:

A hurling navbox, which like all other hurling navboxes identifies the sport:

v t e Offaly – 1981 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Champions (1st title)

1 D. Martin 2 T. Donoghue 3 E. Coughlan 4 P. Fleury 5 A. Fogarty 6 P. Delaney 7 G. Coughlan 8 J. Kelly 9 L. Currams 10 P. Kirwan 11 B. Bermingham 12 M. Corrigan 13 P. Carroll 14 P. Horan (c) 15 J. Flaherty Subs used 19 B. Keeshan for T. O'Donoghue 17 D. Owens for P. Kirwan Subs not used 16 J. Troy 18 S. O'Meara 20 T. Conneely 21 M. Kennedy Manager A. Gallagher Selectors P. Mulhare M. Spain T. Errity C. Daly Coach D. Healy

A basketball template, which identifies both the gender and the sport (by the initialism "FIBA"): Template:Europe Under-20 Championship for Women

So why exactly do you object to including this info for handball? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

So, including EHF/IHF should be good or? Any by the same logic, FIBA should not be enought eh? I know, cherry picking or whatever but i'm out. Kante4 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, if you are simply going to stop discussion, then I will restore the changes.

If you feel that we are unlikely to each agreement, then I am happy to take this to an RFC ... but an end of bilateral discussion is not the end of the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, you can undo it if you want. I get your point somehow, tbh. I just don't like "it" looks. Maybe we can work that out somehow? Kante4 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like "France men's squad"? The sport is described in the article, i would say. Kante4 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

But why omit the name of the sport? How exactly does that help the reader?

The sport should indeed be described the article. But many sportspeople play more than one sport, and for those players, the scope of the navbox cannot be inferred from the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

In every article about handball players, the sport is mentioned in the article and no one plays another sport. (Those articles i came across, and that were many). Kante4 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You should be very careful before making assertions such as In every article about handball players no one plays another sport. You do qualify that assertion by restrictin the scope to thge articles you came across -- but do you really think that you have personally checked this on every single en.wp article on a handball player? Really?

I will use a few tools to give you some lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe earlier there were some. Those templates are created from 2011 WC on i think (Maybe 2008 OG). And there is no one i believe. Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Kante4 , there are currently 4278 en.wp articles on handball players (including some lists). You cannot possibly be sure that none of hem played any other sport. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure there are some. As said above, the templates are from 2011 on or so. And there are only a few, if any... So, i see no need for the sport included. Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't find the tools which would generate the lists easily, so I am using AWB to scan the pages. It's slow, but put of the first few hundred players, there are dozens playing other sports. I will post the full list when it is complete.

In the meantime, please clarify again:

a) exactly what harm is done by including the word "handball". It takes only 9 extra characters (including the space)

b) even if the number of handballers playing only one sport is small, why label the templates in such a way as to be misleading on some pages, when there is a very simple way of making it clear on all pages?

Note too that a huge proportion of the handball articles are currently one-line stubs, many with a single source to a handball database (often apparently create to fill out the links on the navboxes). By their very nature, those articles will not reveal whether the person played any other sport ... but if and when these articles are expanded, that info will be added where relevant. It is very unwise to base assumptions about the involvement of players in other sports when the sources used do not reveal such info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Like i said, i find it useless but can understand your view. I said everythig above of how small the number of players (since 2011 when those templates started) will be (i believe). Kante4 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Or, if the sport is really needed (not for me but is not a dealbreaker), how about "France men's handball squad"? Kante4 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy 2017!

Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Piped links in categories

Hello, I'm currently trying to sort out some of the categories and subcats relating to organized crime (a big mess of repetitive and redundant categories), and ran across this edit, which makes no sense to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category%3AFilms_about_the_Irish_Mob&type=revision&diff=757813580&oldid=729023135 What is the purpose of putting piped links in categories like that? I've already removed a couple of those categories as being too broad, and at least one should be deleted altogether (Irish Mob and Irish-American organized crime are two ways of saying the same thing, so the question is, should the more common term be kept, or the more encyclopedic?). I don't often work on categories for precisely these reasons; sometimes, you just wander into a thicket. With "gangster"-related categories and articles, in particular, it seems, you run into a lot of fanboys who are obsessed with the topic but not necessarily great editors. At any rate, can you answer the question about piped links, as I don't recall seeing that before. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

They control the category sort order. It's commonly done when category names are prefixed by the name of the parent. Eponymous categories also have their lead article categorized with a space, to sort them to the head. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Clear as mud. This is another reason I rarely wander into the thicket of categorization: I find the rules often impenetrable. But, I feel this is also part of the reason I often find redundant and useless categories: they are being created by editors who also do not understand the rules of categorization and how some categories are useful and many others are not. So, back into the thicket I go, to try to make some sense of it... ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi TheOldJacobite, and Happy New Year. I hope you are recovering well from '15 and '45. <grin>

First, the "piped links" are not actually piped links. They are sort keys, which determine how the articles are sorted in category listings. So, for example ] would make the article appear under the letter "A" at the top of the listing for Category:Gangster films ... whereas ] makes it appear under "Z".

Sometimes, an article uses the same sort key for all or most categories, in which case the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT}} makes everyting easier and cleaner. So for example, in the diff you linked above, {{DEFAULTSORT:Irish mob}} would have save the need to put an identical sort key on 4 categories.

You're right, categories can be a bit of a thicket. Especially in topic areas, where, as you rightly note, the topic tends to attract those with more enthusiasm than editing experience. That's one of the joys of Misplaced Pages <wry grin>.

FWIW, my own approach is to try get a broad feel for categorisation of any particular topic are before dipping in. Some the category trees can be quite complex, esp when there are multiple attributes at play. Your strategy of focusing on organised crime sounds to me like aq good way to unravel things.

That article linked above does appear to have some overcategorisation. For example, Category:Films about organized crime is redundant when the article is already in in the sub-category Category:Films about organized crime in the United States.

Good luck with cleaning it up! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both for your response and your encouragement. And, yes, overcategorization is one of the banes of my existence. I mostly deal with it in regard to film articles – which is how I started looking at the organized crime articles, since many film articles related to organized crime are overpopulated with redundant categories. Into the thicket we go, machete in hand, and 6 months later we have to do it again. But, we enjoy this, right? Happy New Year! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your close of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_4#Category:Former_US_President_Wikipedians

I thought your close was a fine, if not great, idea. However, it begs the question of what to do with the remainder of categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. I got the impression you didn't want me to nominate any more at CfD. Were you thinking of speeding the rest per IAR, or did you want this RfC to occur and conclude first? The RfC wouldn't be for discussing whether the categories should exist, but merely if the users should be removed from the redlinked categories, so I don't think there should be a bunch of categories in limbo here based on an RfC nobody may ever get around to requesting. Alternatively the third option would be for me to nominate them and you speedy close them as you did this one, but I feel a speedy deletion per IAR would likely be more prudent than that. Thoughts? VegaDark (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi VegaDark, and thanks for your msg.

This series of IAR closures (here's a list of 8 of them) has solely been to remove from CFD a series of repetitive discussions about category pages created by one editor solely to fill redlinks on the user pages of editors who appear happy to have retained them as redlinks.

I have not taken a view in the substantive merits of these categories.

CFDs on other categories, which were not created to fill jokey redlinks, I will leave to run their course and be closed in the usual way. So continue to nominate as you see fit -- I will apply this early close logic only those which I find to be part of this fill-the-redlinks-regardless-of-utlity exercise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Literally everything in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians is exactly such a category - a category that was redlinked that was recently created just to make it no longer a redlink. 100% of everything in there I believe your early close rationale could be applied to, which is why I mentioned just speedying them without the need of a nomination. However, if that's what you would prefer, I can do that. VegaDark (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've openend an RfC per your suggestion, should you wish to participate. VegaDark (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wwikix

got blocked for his efforts - as well as earflaps btw - the legacy both left is something no one has gone in to do a forensic analysis of the weirdnesses in their understanding of categories - suppose no one ever will :( JarrahTree 14:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree:. Thanks. Hadn't realised it was created by a blocked editor, just that it was something which needed fixing.
Over the years, we have had a steady trickle of editors who do weird categorisations (the first I recall was User:Pastorwayne, nearly 10 years ago) ... and sometimes there is an ad-hoc taskforce which mounts a prompt cleanup exercise, and sometimes it's a bit more ad hoc. Seems that this is one of the latter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

...or if someone did - it would be of benefit to someone who might want to do a potential case analysis study of idiosyncratic loners wandering through wikipedias categories unchecked and unflinching in creating the world in their mind which runs contrary to consensually created basic principals of how[REDACTED] works... wwwkix and earflaps really left a legacy of a mess no one seems interested in... If I was really nuts I would try to go in - but hmmm ... JarrahTree 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirection of speculative fiction novels and series

Hello BrownHairedGirl I ask you to express opinion about the latest redirections of User:SnowFire. I ask you to assess the expediency I of merging articles by him, including the elimination of articles about award-winning speculative fiction novels, for example The Apocalypse Codex & The Hidden Family. Because I'm not sure of the correctness of such actions.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yasnodark

Please can you post some diffs of the edits which you find problematic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Apocalypse_Codex&redirect=no 06:54, 6 January 2017‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Hidden_Family&redirect=no 07:51, 3 January 2017‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Nightmare_Stacks&redirect=no 06:52, 6 January 2017‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Family_Trade 07:55, 3 January 2017‎

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Annihilation_Score&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Rhesus_Chart&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Delirium_Brief&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Atrocity_Archives&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Clan_Corporate&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Revolution_Business&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Merchant_Princes

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Laundry_Files#The_Rhesus_Chart

--Yasnodark (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Yasnodark

Those are not actually diffs. See WP:DIFF for how to link to a diff. It really makes life a lot easier if diffs of contested edits are included in a discussion.

Anyway, I followed the links and found the diffs. The first 3 items on your list are unexplained redirections where the edit summary gives no reason for redirecting a page with substantive content. The 4th one does give a reason, so I have not reverted that.

Feel free to revert the 4th one yourself if you want to. Since there is clearly a disagreement between you and User:SnowFire about whether to merge, this needs a WP:MERGE discussion. SnowFire made some WP:BOLD edits, which you are entitled to revert if you disagree ... but then both of you please follow WP:BRD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yasnodark: I'm not sure why you asked BrownHairedGirl rather than me, and having this conversation here. I would have been happy to explain my edits. Since BHG has apparently joined in and reverted me as well, I suppose we'll have this discussion here, although I'm puzzled as to why - my edits were absolutely explained (and also mentioned on Talk:Charles Stross in advance).

I'm not 100% sure, but you DID look at the resulting series pages, correct? There was no removal of content. None. Even bad content about irrelevant stuff. It was solely a merger. Before, someone going to The Apocalypse Codex or whatever would see the content on that page, and with my change they see the exact same content on the series page at The_Laundry_Files#The_Apocalypse_Codex. And furthermore, this could be a temporary merger at that, if you're committed enough to expand some of these articles - there would be no problem with re-creating and re-spinning off these articles once there's any content to be had there; see for example Singularity Sky. Of course, it's actually been me who has been doing that expansion and improving the content (see or or ).

I'm somewhat insulted because merging these articles is saving them from a potential AFD or redirect-and-no-merge, like what happened to various articles on The Merchant Princes, not by me. Additionally, many reviews and awards have been for the series-as-a-whole, e.g. The Merchant Princes, so they count as coverage and notability for all the books.

I plan on re-redirecting, but will hold off a bit in case there's strenuous objection - although I would argue that the only good grounds for objection are "I'm going to expand all of these articles so much that they can all stand on their own right now." And even then, you can do the expansion on the series page first, then spin it off once it's large enough. SnowFire (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, specifically for BrownHairedGirl. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the automatic edit summary for redirects was preferred. "Back in the day" I would say "merging content" or whatever, but the automatic edit summary on a redirect is very clear and obvious. And now apparently I'm being punished for using it. Is there some standard that goes against that edit summary that I don't know about? Serious question, since you apparently considered it a problem above. (I will admit that in retrospect I missed adding {{R from merge}} on some of those redirects, but that shouldn't be that bad...?! That's minor housekeeping...) SnowFire (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: you have not in any way been "punished". All that has happened is that you have been reverted, which is simply the first stage of the WP:BRD cycle.

The three edits which I did revert , , offered no explanation in the edit summary of why the page had been redirected. Neither the edit summaries nor the substance of the edits conform to WP:MERGETEXT. And no, I didn't burrow around your contribs looking for an explanation somewhere else -- I assume that there is a discussion or written explanation of the merge, that the editsummary will link to it.

And as you will have seen above, the 4th edit I reviewed 'did explain itself, so I didn't revert it.

Yes, it would have been better if Yasnodark had approached SnowFire directly. And maybe I should have declined to do anything other than advise Yasnodeak to do that.

So maybe we have all screwed up a bit, but this is all no big deal. I have no interest in the substantive merits of these merges. I was just helping out an editor concerned at some unexplained actions, and I hope that you two can both sort this out between you.

You can continue to use this talk page if you want to, but it would be better to move the discussion to an article talkpage, or to a project page, so that the discussion can be seen by any other editors interested in the topic. Good luck resolving it, and best wishes to both of you --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, happy to move this discussion elsewhere - where it should have been to start.

"Punish" was perhaps the wrong word, sure, but we got dragged into spending time on this discussion that is immensely frustrating and the kind of thing that causes editor burnout - it feels like being punished for improving (not deleting!) and adding content. Thank you for the link to MERGETEXT though, I was under the impression that the AES was preferred for merges, as it doesn't cover up what happened. That said, this was ultimately a minor error in form, and I would recommend not reverting such redirects in the future unless you actually do want to dig into the merits of them, even if it is just to look at the target page to verify a merge happened rather than deletion - this shouldn't happen solely because someone forgot or didn't use a merge summary. (And for my part, I'll definitely stick to the letter of WP:MERGETEXT myself so that digging won't be required.) SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, SnowFire, but a major edit like that without explanation is the sort of thing that I would usually revert on sight, with my own edit summary along the lines of a more verbose "rv unexplanined". Then discuss later. Big changes need explanation, and a merge is a big change. Edit summaries take only a few seconds to type, and they are the best way of ensuring that other editors can readily understand what you have done and why.

Anyway, good luck reaching a consensus on what to do here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Celtic nationalities

I presume from your classification of Tommy Farr that you believe WP does not allow Welsh, Scottish, etc, as a nationality or nominal cultural heritage. As a matter of interest, do we also call all natives of northern Ireland British? We Welsh have no problem, because we were Britons long before the Romans, Danes and English arrived! Bjenks (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bjenks: I think you have misread the diff. He remains categorised as Welsh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, indeed—sorry, it was the lede that prompted my interest. Bjenks (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No prob, Bjenks. Easily mistaken and no harm done.

And I am glad to see that you fixed the lede. If you are interested and energetic, Category:Welsh male boxers contains a lot of other articles which might benefit from a similar fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jbh 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)