Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:03, 23 March 2014

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.

Abby Martin

Very deftly done. I'm not sure which should go where, but you spelled out the choice nicely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anythingyouwant.

Flattery brightens the day :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Attitude

Thanks for proving my point. Removing my response to your skewed summary of our Type 45 discussion above & the edit summary "which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you" is simply contributes to my concern about your attitude. I don't require a reply. Regards Mark83 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For continuing to volunteer at an exceptional level despite what sometimes seems like an endless torrent of ill-thought criticism. bd2412 T 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: Thanks! Muchly appreciated.

On Misplaced Pages, as elsewhere, most folks are decent and well-mannered, and most disagreements are resolved without too much drama. Sometimes, though, there is a reminder that empty vessels make the most noise ... and some encouragement at those times helps a lot. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Where drama does arise, there is a time to walk away from it. I admit, I find it hard to do so myself, but ceasing to engage your critics (particularly in fora where the paucity of their arguments is self evident) does not equate with conceding their claims. bd2412 T 21:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BD2412. Point taken. It has been an unusually nasty episode, and it is time to unplug. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Period 1 element

An editor has asked for a Move review of Period 1 element. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DePiep (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Shades/Variations page move

Hey, BrownHairedGirl,
It seems like there was unanimous support to move Variations of brown, Variations of cyan, Variations of pink and Variations of gray to "Shades of" titles and I noticed that you said you could help with this proposal. I think most people would prefer the article titles to be consistent so I'd like to see these requested page moves initiated. Liz 10:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Unanimous support, where?

C'mon, Liz, don't make me hunt around looking for the location of whatever discussion you are referring to.

Also, please explain what you want me to do. Open a an RM? Close a discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the RMs were put on the Talk Pages of those four articles and on every one, everyone responding supported moving the "Variations of" articles to the more commonly used title "Shades of" (which is used for all other colors). You mentioned on the Talk Page discussions that is was not proper to have four separate discussions of the same issue (true!) and offered to help with the move. For example on Talk:Variations of brown, you said,

• "I am therefore closing all 4 discussions as "no consensus", without prejudice to an immediate renomination of the same set in one location. Guidance on how to do so is available at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves, and I will be happy to help doing that if asked on my talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl"

So, that's what I was asking help with, since you offered. Liz 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for clarifying that. I'll get to it later today.

But please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please ... do include the relevant direct links when asking for help. I have closed many dozens of discussions over the last few weeks, and don't immediately recall every one of them. It's so much easier to respond when the links are set out clearly, as you did so well in your second message :)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this instance would be memorable. I didn't realize you closed a lot of discussions, I think of you busying yourself with CfDs, not RMs. I don't know how you do so much! But I will take your advice and next time provide diffs. Liz 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Done: see Talk:Variations of brown#Requested_move_2014-03-20.

I decided last month to do a bit less CFD, and more RM closures. Not sure whether I will stick with RM; it seems to come with a much higher rate of avoidable drama, and I dunno if I want to expose myself to that much hassle.

Sorry that I was a bit snippy in my replies to you yesterday. The nonsense from the misquoting-wikilawyer had got to me a bit, and re-reading the discussion above I was lot less frinedly than I like to be. SorrY! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I knew that my query was coming on the heels of that AN/I dramafest. I'm glad that has blown over.

I really enjoy working with categories but I find discussions on CFD involve so much unresolved conflict. I got so depressed seeing all of those gender categories put up for deletion, going over the same argument again and again and again. With only a dozen or so editors regularly participating in CfD, it often only takes 3 or 4 people to decide the future of categories that I think are important (and some of which will probably be recreated).

Well, that's off-topic! I'll look into the RM for the colors. Thanks for following up on that. Liz 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Liz} I'm sorry to say that it's a problem all over Misplaced Pages. Not enough active editors, so discussions in most places involve only a few editors. If it gets much worse, large parts of the consensus-forming process will simply break :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Favour

Can you full protect Zhantoro Satybaldiyev and revert the CU confirmed sock Urfinze please. The SPI case page is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Фаиз Махмудов so you can verify this is a sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the period 1 element Move review. The thread is I think BrownHairedGirl needs a talk. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Communes/comuni/comunes of Italy

Hello BHG. I was looking at Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move to see if it's ready to be closed. About a zillion files will have to be renamed if it goes through, so I hope whatever change is made won't have to be undone. The term 'comunes' doesn't get universal support in the discussion. One editor said it is a bit too much of a neologism. Can I ask how you would personally rank these options, assuming that 'comunes' might not be the final outcome? The choices to pick from would be Comunes, Communes, Comuni or Municipalities. User:Andrewa has started a new voting section on 'List of communes' and I would wait before closing if I thought that others might yet add their opinions to that thread. People are OK with 'List of X' so far. The question not yet decided is 'List of what'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't really my alternative proposal... but it may not be all that important whose idea it was... Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for your msg, and sorry for the slow reply. I was diverted yesterday by a bit of wikidrama.

Whether or not it was Andrewa's idea, I have come round to the view that it's best to use the English translation "communes". I will leave a note about this at the RM discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. I have now closed Talk:Comuni of the Province of Agrigento#Requested move as 'Moved to List of communes of X'. Presumably the other actions you cited in the move proposal should also be done, but with the 'communes' spelling that was preferred in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

re: Chinese dynasties

Hi, BrownHairedGirl: thank you very much for the work you have done/are doing to improve the names of articles of certain Chinese dynasties. I have been making some contributions in this area as well, and may continue to do so. I am wondering if there is an easier or better way to fix certain category issues, such as Category:Ming Dynasty poets, other than for someone to create Category:Ming dynasty poets and to then go through and manually edit each of the relevant articles? Again, thank you Dcattell (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: These type of categories should probably really be Category:Ming poets, Category:Song poets, and so on, in line with articles such as Ming poetry, Song poetry, and so on. Dcattell (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dcattell, you're welcome! It was a much bigger job than I had expected, but I had a little time to get stuck in.

Please don't go manually renaming categories. Apart from being very hard and slow work, category tasks like that require prior consensus, at WP:CFD.

In this case, these are renamings to match a head article renamed at move review, which fits the speedy criterion WP:C2D ... so you can use WP:CFD/S.

By far the easiest way to do this is with WP:TWINKLE. If you don't already have Twinkle enabled, then make haste to Special:Preferences to do so :)

BTW, I had written the above before your PS, when you proposed removing the word "dynasty". That would not fit the speedy criteria, and would require a full discussion at WP:CFD. Personally, I think that I would oppose that change as removing clarity, and in some cases creating ambiguity: Category:Song poets ... but if you want to make the case, feel free to do so.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! And, thanks! I'll be following your suggested links and reading through the information there. I'm not in an urgent hurry to change the category names around; and, in fact, I believe that there is a certain encyclopedic point to informing readers that various sources use both forms such as "Ming dynasty" and "Ming Dynasty". I also agree that there is some inherent ambiguity in article titles such as (and in particular) "Song poetry"! The reason for these titles was partly because of the then ongoing dynasty/Dynasty controversy, and also because there was already a first-in-series of related articles titled "Tang poetry" (a name which directly reflects the Chinese terminology -- in which context any evenly moderately informed Chinese reader would already know that "Tang" refers to a specific dynastic era). My only real concern would be to avoid unnecessary confusion for new editors or readers due to major inconsistencies or from lack of clarity. However, these questions of nomenclature may fall under the category of bridges better crossed some future day, or year. Best, and thank you again Dcattell (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dcattell: I decided to go ahead with the speedy renamings of the categories, and have started listing the categories at WP:CFD/S. There may be a case for other changes in addition to the capitalisation, but to keep things simple, let's just do the capitalisation fix for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl. Yes, and I'm still working on learning more about categories, which I have always found challenging, and still need to read some of the material from your links (also I'm not a hobgobblin for total consistency). From

I think it would be quite helpful to change/move the categories named "...Dynasty poets" in the Category:Chinese poets to "...dynasty poets", except of course "Six Dynasties poets", "Five Dynasties and Ten kingdoms poets", and "Northern and Southern Dynasties" since in these 3 particular cases "Dynasty" is part of a proper name (both in Chinese and English). But of most help would be to do the lower case "d" with Category:Han Dynasty poetry and Category:Tang Dynasty poetry. In any case, the work done in changing the Chinese dynasty article names is already a valuable and important step for Misplaced Pages, also perhaps a logical and foregone conclusion, but one the sooner done, the less cleanup afterwards! I am very appreciative for the work that you and others have done in this regard and am sorry to not be more helpful. Dcattell (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Scottish MPs

Category:Lists of Scottish MPs, 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom

Can you look at the introduction to Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom? As I read that it seems to include every residential building, at least in the first line or two. I know that there are some definitions for some of these, but those of us on the other side of the pond are not well versed in the divisions. Right now it seems to be just country houses, castles and manor houses. Which is not a problem. I'm probably going to tag as a container category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian

I read that intro as a lot more restrictive: "anything of historical architectural note that was used as a residence by a noble family or persons of esteem in history". That may not be the best definition, but there is another one at country house: "a large house or mansion in the British and Irish countryside, usually associated with the aristocracy or landed gentry". That's much more succinct, and should be used in the category intro.

Note that the term is widely used in scholarly literature (see a Google Books search), and is not mere container for another more specific types. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Concentration camp codes

Hi, BrownHairedGirl. Could you please take a look at the codes that I have started adding to the pages (starting with the top ones)? I feel that it might be wrong...Hoops gza (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hoops gza: Your tagging of Category:Auschwitz concentration camp victims from Austria looks good to me! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, sorry for the trouble.Hoops gza (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No prob, Hoops gza. You're welcome :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

making me the target is an old tactic

Discussion closed. Skookum1 is free to open a request for deletion review, but should first read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Bad call, very bad. Didn't you even look at the category tree and the other titles and parallel primarytopic town vs band the town takes its name from issues? No, of course not. I'll save my breath, see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22. I'm girding my loins to get Squamish, Squamish, British Columbia and Squamish people jointly relisted by MoveReview. Yes I know I have to write tersely and neutrally and that logic and evidence are not on the table - only wikiquette is. Please sir, may I have a relisting etc. There were five Canadians as well as myself in that and you should have clued into what Themightyquill was saying in my defense. The current situation is untenable and has to still be resolved; the guidelines already exists to support Skwxwu7mesh, but nobody would ever acknowledge any of that; even for quoting and commenting on very relevant passages in TITLE I was told to shut up. Before this is another "wall of text" I'll sign off. Both you and Fayenatic London made me the target of your negative decisions on this title, and making editors the issue rather than the topic itself is supposed to be against the rules.Skookum1 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Shishalh was just moved from Sechelt people; there's already a Category:Shishalh, which I created to prevent someone copying the Squamish pattern so no CFDS is required. But this is an exactly parallel example, as with many others, of the native name being the "way to go" and the "anglicization" that is the town, in this case Sechelt, requires no disambiguation, as is supposed to be the case for unique-town names in Canada. Skwxwu7mesh is exactly the same, just not as common in print. The Ethnicities and tribes guideline is very clear on this choice of native name even IF it's not most common. A future CfDS after relisted RMs is the way to go; and getting CANENGL to embrace issues of toponymy vs indigenous nomenclature...well, we'd already "solved" that years ago but it's been shoved aside.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: I presume that you are referring to my closure of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 19#Squamish. I stand by it, and have nothing to add except to note that the same problem of excessive verbosity is replicated on a smaller scale here, where you post a long reply to yourself, and also at Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian_Wikipedians' notice board#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22, where you post 2 replies to yourself.

See the guidance at WP:TPYES: "Be concise", and "Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." You made a herculean effort to ensure that this CFD discussion finished by exhaustion.

You are of course free to open a WP:Deletion review. However, before you do so I strongly urge you to take a break from the issue and consider the disruptive effect of your extraordinary verbosity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

When complicated issues need to be addressed in response to mistaken opinion or while citing one guideline, or only a passage in that guideline is applied and not the rest of what it says, pointing that out is de rigeur, as is showing parallels and precedents re "Consistency" as in TITLE. That I am prolix (I speed type, it's not like I mean to be like this, it's just the way it is) is held against me and the discussion in too many cases. A deletion review may be a route to follow here; re-opening the three Squamish titles RMs via MoveReview I don't think I will fare well in that process because of hostility to my "verbosity" and the insecurity at having opinions and actions criticized bleated about as personal attacks, so I have asked another Canadian who voted in support of this CfD who is much better at being terse than I am take that on. The current situation is untenable and was caused by ill-informed and very hasty RMs and a knee-jerk CFDS, which reading the parameters there it seems that the sudden category move on a just-changed title that had been stable since the article's founding was completely out of line. Oh, this is another wall of text, huh?Skookum1 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)