User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 024

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

NB, you overlooked notifying the creators of the categories in the cfds here and here. I have left notes on their talk pages, where still active. Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to notify the category creators, and in the case of a group nomination, it is quite common to omit that step. Notifying a whole bunch of creators risks unbalancing the discussion, and by using a boilerplate notice of two separate CFDs, you appear to have notified them of discussions relating to categories which they did not create :( --15:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a question - are you intending to nominate all the "Old Fooian" categories, or just those for which there may be ambiguity with other schools? There are tonnes more out there (see Category:People educated by school in Hertfordshire for nine, at least three of which are based on place names). Number 57 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What I am doing here is analysing lots of categories in this list to look for obscurity, ambiguities, and other problems.

That towns list was a cull from a sort-of major-settlements list; it was the residue after I took out the cities. Once I have done the cities, then I may to look at other place-based names. My current best guess is that the smaller places are less likely to cause ambiguity problems, but I may be wrong on that. Looking the cities and major towns, the sheer number of the ambiguities surprised me.

Or I may just take a break, 'cos analysing these categories has been a lot of work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. It might be worth progressing very carefully, as although some of them look like they may be ambiguous based on the place names, it may not be the case - for instance although Bishop's Stortford has two upper schools bearing the town's name, only attendees at one of them are known as Old Stortfordians (the other school has no name for its former pupils). Number 57 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right, a lot of caution is needed! Some previous examinations of these categories were mass nominations of hundreds at a time, and that allowed no scrutiny of the individual context of each category, and sadly generated a lot of heat and fury. Whatever decisions are reached, I am sure that they will be better if the issues are examined carefully.

The Old Stortfordians look ambiguous to me. How is the reader who sees that category name going to know whether it refers to Bishop's Stortford High School or Bishop's Stortford College? Or to a school which doesn't even include the town in its name, as with the Old Blackburnians or the Old Tamensians? Or even just to historical or aged people from Bishop's Stortford? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally when I see such a category and I didn't know to what it refers, I would simply click into it and find out. I'd imagine there are many people in the Anglosphere outside the UK who have no idea what an Old Etonian is, but that is not a reason to avoid having the category named as such. I'd imagine that most articles should also say in the text where that person went to school as part of their biography, so the category name should also be explained via that. Number 57 16:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories are a navigational device (see WP:CAT#Overview), and the category name is a sort of signpost on the journey. What's the point of a signpost if it doesn't explain to the reader where she is going? A huge proportion of what goes on at CFD is renaming categories to clarify their purpose for the reader.

Old Etonians is a rare outlier case: the term is so widely used (see 4270 hit on Google News alone) that it is in a league of its own. None of the other schools which I have checked come within two orders of magnitude of that prominence. So while the Old Etonians are a strong keep in my view, the others need much more careful checking.

One of the big problems with all these categories is that the relationship between the "Fooian" term and the school name may not just be ambiguous, as with the Stortfordians or the Old Edwardians or Old Elizabethans, it may also be misleading (e.g. Old Stoics or Old Queens), deeply obscure (e.g. Old Pharosians) or downright weird (e.g. Old Dolphins). The more I look at these categories, the harder I find it to devise any sort of methodology which would allows readers or editors to infer which Fooian relates to which school, and vice-versa. Don't forget that readers will all also encounter these categories by browsing the category tree, where the category name will appear without explanation in the category list. Similar issues with towns (Category:Frankfurters? Hamburgers?) eventually led to the abandonment of all demonyms from people-by-place categories.

That's why I am proceeding carefully, trying to ferret out the problematic ones and then see how many of them are, like the Old Etonians, so well-known that they are preferable to a descriptive category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hate to butt in, but led to the abandonment of all demonyms from people-by-place categories ?? When did that happen (I ask happily)?

Oh, and btw, I read lots of news on the interwebs, and I've never heard of "Old Etonians" nor would I be able to guess at the school if my life depended on it. If we're trying to clarify the purpose for the reader, shouldn't we do that with all categories? This may be an extreme example, but there are 7B people on the planet; the number who know what an "Old Etonian" refers to is minuscule. So even if Google News finds it a lot, changing the name is only helpful to the billions of people who would be confused. .02 --Kbdank71 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Kb, no need to apologise -- you are one of the ppl who knows most about the category system on en.wiki, and you are v welcome to join this discussion.

The use of demonyms for people-by-place is specifically deprecated in Categorization of people guideline. It took a bit of hunting to track how that had happened, but the issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 after a bit of to-ing in fro-ing over the course of early 2006. It has been incorporated in the CoP guideline since at least August 2006.

I think that your reaction to "Old Etonian" is probably similar to that of most Americans. But in the same way, ppl on this side wouldn't know any of the nicknames for your sports teams, and so on. Personally, I am generally in favour of keeping category names as clear as possible, but I am prepared to consider some exceptional usage of particularly well-known terminology from one country. The old Etonians seem to me to be a case like that, because the term is used outside the UK. They get 88 hits on the Irish Independent, 866 on the Irish Times, 281 on the New York Times, and 96 on the Sydney Morning Herald and even 1 on Le Monde. That's a pretty global reach.

But as noted above, I think that the Etonians are a unique case. I will do due diligence on them all, but I really doubt that any of the others will turn out to be anywhere near widely used.

For now, tho, the main thing is to tackle those which are broken on their own terms -- the Old Fooian categories where don't have a clear one-to-one relationship between the Fooian term and a Foo school. I don't know where consensus will land after that, but if we can get things that far we will have made huge progress in improving the usability of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect after Old Etonian the next most widely used term is "Old Harrovian", both because of the school's fame (especially as the traditional rival to Eton) and because the term is relatively close to the school's name. But Old Harrovian yields 416 Google News hits, less than a tenth of its rival. (Some of this may be down to a seeming decline in Harrow's presence in politics. According to CatScan there are only two current MPs who went to Harrow, both first termers - Richard Drax & Guy Opperman - and I seem to recall comment that after the 1997 election there wasn't a single one at all in the Commons. It's a far cry from the days of Baldwin, Churchill, Hoare and Amery all sitting in Cabinet together and considering the response to Indian nationalists like Nehru!) I'd be surprised if any other term gets more hits than Old Harrovian. ("Old Westminster" has too many meanings for a search to be meaningful.) Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're so sweet, but there's a big difference between "used to know" and "knows". Granted, I try to keep up with goings-on, but it's difficult if you're not slogging through, day in and day out, and these days, with a new job and an addition to the family, my time is very limited for the wiki.

I must have been thinking of something else. You'd think that since I closed what looks like more than half the discussions on that page, I'd have remembered it. Then again, I've closed so many over the years, it all turns into a blur. Thanks for the link.

Here's my issue with keeping Old Etonians, or Old Whateverians. I am a big proponent of consistency. Having Old Etonians here but Pupils Who Attended Whatever School there is not only potentially confusing to readers, but to editors who weren't in on the discussion. And I know this isn't a scientific test, but I checked the first ten articles in cat:Old Etonians. Not once are they called an Old Etonian. In every instance, the article reads either "attended Eton" or "was educated at Eton". If it's ok for the article text here on wikipedia, why isn't it ok for the category name? Again, I just prefer consistency. If we change one, we should change them all. --Kbdank71 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You allowing trivial life issues like paid work and progeny to interfere with wiki editing? Shocking! ;)

Seriously, tho, I understand the constraints, but your more regular contributions are missed. You did some great closes of debates.

Things don't seem to me have changed that much at CfD in the last few years. Fewer participants, much more routine stuff going through speedy, and big raucous debates are now rare. The main changes in outcome are an even stronger focus on consistency and clarity, and heightened awareness of the dangers of ambiguity in category names. As a result, category names are getting longer, but I think that in general they are getting better. The foundations which you helped lay are holding up well!

On the use of "Old Fooian" in body text, you are quite right. It is a problem I have pointing out for years that the Old Fooian categories use terminology not seen in the article. It's one of the reasons I have raised this subject repeatedly over the last few years.

Currently, the UK ppl-by-schools categories are split about 50-50 between "Old Fooians", and "People educated at Foo" (see User:Moonraker/OF). The latter format was arrived at last year after a lot of huge scraps, and replaced a mishmash of "Former pupils", "Alumni", "Former students", and goodness what else. That was a big improvement.

Now we are starting to make progress on replacing Old Fooian categories. The last few weeks have seen the demise of lots of highly ambiguous ones, plenty of deeply obscure titles, and some bizarre ones (Old Dolphins was one of the greatest hits). Every step on the road brings more clarity and more consistency. But ...

These changes need consensus. Progress was blocked for years by some diehard Old Fooian editors, but several of them are now being very helpful and are working with the renaming process rather than fighting every last battle. However, all of them have their limits, and will oppose complete eradication of Old Fooians. I think it's important to respect their desire to draw a line, even tho I don't agree with it, and I am grateful for any progress. In return, I am applying due diligence to the cases they regard as most important, and trying to learn more about their reasoning. It's called consensus-building :)

So, please don't let the best the enemy of the good. Let's make what progress we can, and see where that leaves everything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. While I am all for consistency, you are correct, I do recall some of the early discussions that went nowhere because everyone was rigid in their opinions and nobody gave an inch. If they can, so can I. And you are right, any progress is good progress. --Kbdank71 05:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• A person educated at Eton (or who attended Eton) becomes an Old Etonian on Leaving; similarly a person educated at Harrow an Old Harrowian; a person educated at Winchester an Old Wykehamist; a person (like me) educated at Shrewsbury an Old Salopian; and at Chaterhouse an Old Carthusian. The fact that articles may refer to them as educated at foo college, not as an Old Fooian should make no difference. These are major public schools and these terms are (or should be) well-known. I believe we should retain the denonyms for these, but that this needs to be limited to a relatively small number of the most major public schools. For minor public schools, grammar school, and comprehensives, we should not. The WP consensus is that categories should be renamed to "People educated at foo" where:
  1. ambiguity arises;
  2. the demonym for school is obscure; or
  3. the school has few notable old boys, so that the old fooian term is obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  Peter, the consensus on Old Fooians has shifted a lot in the last year, and we have yet to see the full shape of where it lands.

  So far this year there is a clear consensus on the first two points you mention (obscurity and ambiguity), even for otherwise prominent schools ... and I think that there may be an emerging consensus on schools with few notable alumni, which will be my next group (once this lot are completed). However, I don't want to prejudge where the consensus will turn out to be, althoug I do note that you and some other editors acttach particular significance to the "CER schools" (i.e. those in the Clarendon Group, Eton Group, or Rugby Group). As you and I discussed before, I think that if and when those categories are brought to CFD, they need to be considered separately from the others, so that editors who want to draw bright lines can make their case easily and in a centralised discussion ... but there are a lot of more minor schools to be considered first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"XfD notification spam"

The other side of the coin, BrownHairedGirl, is that you nominated twenty categories for renaming and did not notify any of the creators of them. I am one of those and found out about the discussions by chance, I think while updating the list at User:Moonraker/OF. Moonraker (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Paulites

I have a request for you here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry I hadn't spotted it before. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Elections help

Away from the Old Fooian discussions, I wonder whether you may be able to help enlighten us here. I am working with another editor on trying to complete the various election templates, and we were discussing pre-1707 elections in England and Scotland and pre-1801 elections in Ireland. As you have done so much work on old parliamentary constituencies and MPs from centuries ago, I thought you might be able to help, particularly if you know of any online sources for the election years/dates. Thanks, Number 57 22:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to discuss something where we seem more likely to agree :)

Unfortunately, I have found v little online about elections before the 20th century. I have Craig's reference books for 1832-1950, which are superb on individual constituencies, but don't attempt an overview. I can't recall how far the online London Gazette goes, but the OCR quality before 1850 is so poor that the search doesn't work properly.

If you can afford a copy of Stooks Smith, your can get the election dates ... and I an online source that may be worth a peek is the History of Parliament Trust's publications, which are finally available for free at http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/. Their emphasis (like mine) is on prosopography, so I dunno how relevant that will be to you.

The Times Digital Archive is great for the 19th century, and has allowed me to write some moderately passable articles on 19th-century by-elections. You can get free access through Lancashire Libraries, but I can't recall how far back the digital archives go.

Beyond that, I think it's probably a matter of printed sources, and I'm not familiar enough with the survey literature to know what to suggest.

Sorry, that's all a bit discouraging, but I hope it is some help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's good. The history of Parliament website looks a decent bet - I came across this for instance, which at least narrows down the elections to the month in years where there are more than one. Cheers, Number 57 23:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that before 1918, polling took place over the course of a few weeks, so we're talking date ranges rather than dates. Up to 7 weeks seems to have been common in the 19th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I did notice that many of the election dates listed on List of Parliaments of England were over more than one year. First I will try and compile a list of all the members using that site, and hopefully the different months will show up. Number 57 23:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek! That's a big job. The 1832 list took me about 50 hours to compile, so I admire you for getting stick into the earlier elections, where the sources are scantier. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pupils vs Students

You may be interested in following this discussion. It could affect the naming of some categories you are are working. I don't know what impact, if any, there will be or if this would cause another overhaul of the UK school categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation categories

I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

Hi again BHG. Could you spend 30 seconds of your time looking at/giving your opinion on ... Talk:Louise Mensch#News Quiz as a reliable source? Thanks in anticipation. JRPG (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Have just added my tuppenceworth. Hope it helps a bit! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly does:) I hate comedy programs as a source of information on politicians. Thanks once again JRPG (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maritime

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_24#Category:Portuguese_maritime_history

I've commented there and would like to ask your thoughts on it there. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Added what I think may be a solution (for now), to be followed up with a bigger nom later. - jc37 23:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Terenure

Hi BHG, you indef semi-protected Terenure in June 2010, I think it might be time to turn if off. Rgds, Snappy (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Long overdue

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I was not aware until a few minutes ago that you created the {{subst:Rescue list}}. There are concerns with it being linked to a non-standard delsort list, but those issues of list style can be ironed out. VERY nice! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I have been one of the strongest critics of the ARS, but when the decision was made to delete {{rescue}}, and the Rescue list was created to facilitate a different approach, it seemed to me to be only right that the new approach be given a fair wind.

One obvious issue with the rescue list was a concern over transparency, so in the discussion here I suggested following WP:DELSORT's practice of placing a note in the AFD discussion.

I was pleased that the idea found favour, and I hope that its suse will help to ensure that the ARS can do its job of rescuing articles without being accused of canvassing. I still have grave concerns about the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of some ARS members, which the ARS's militaristic name encourages. I'm sure that the name is part of the reason why the New York Times carried an article referring to 'the Article Rescue Squadron, an elite strike force dedicated to fighting “extremist deletion.”'

So far, it appears that ARS has turned a bit of a corner. I really hope that this continues, because the ARS's work is potentially very valuable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Alan Hopes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxford High School (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) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

John Arnold of Monmouthshire

Hi. Can you add the relevant categories of his MP term dates and boxes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No period categories for the pre 1707 ers though? There's 3000 in one category! This I gather is intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dr B. And congrats on yet another fine, meaty article.

The lack of by-parliament categories for most of the Parliament of England is unlikely to be due to any deliberate omission. I think it#'s more a matter of the lack of conveniently-packaged sources for the dates until the History of Parliament went online a year or so back. Until then it was a CD-ROm publication at about £5trillion a copy, and free access to it has made a huge difference to the ability of editors to cover parliament in the period up to the 18th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rural municipalities in Manitoba at CFD

Greetings, I am here to tell you that I am propose most of the rural municipalities of Manitoba categories for deletion per WP:SMALLCAT and is growth at the regular CFD. If you want to participate on the discussion about the WP:SMALLCAT go to the WP:CFD page, then go to the Friday March 23 nominations and then you will see it's titled "Rural municipalities in Manitoba". Then read my nominator's rationale and the tell me if you want to support deletion per WP:SMALLCAT. The link is right there. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 23#Rural municipalities in Manitoba I will see you at the CFD page. Steam5 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. But I wonder why you sent me an individual notification?

I hope this isn't the first of a raft of such notices to other editors, because that would look like WP:CANVASSing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cfr follow-up

Can you please be more specific about the "massive ambiguity" you have alluded to here? Savidan 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Still not getting it. Can you just openly say what you think "Citizenship Clause" refers to, other than the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Savidan 22:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss the CfD at the CfD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

Can take a look at this move discussion? Some of the issue there seems to revolve around how settlements in the UK works and I don't feel qualified to address those issues. In reading the discussion, I almost think the consensus is to delete this, but RM is the wrong forum for that discussion. So maybe consensus is to close the RM discussion and open one at AfD. If you can help out, then thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You've been a huge asset to articles on British politicians on wikipedia. Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am too busy with work at the moment to do much on that topic, but I hope to return to it some day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Arnold of Monmouthshire

Materialscientist (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello BrownHairedGirl/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Liz McManus'

Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Liz McManus', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with {{Dead link}}. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/Mc/McManus,L/life.htm

• You added this in May 2006.
• I tried to load this link on 26 March, 28 March, 30 March and today, but it never worked.
• I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello, I'm so sorry. I shouldn't write things like that, so please ignore me. I'll keep off these particular cat pages in future as they enrage me. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note, and please accept my apologies for being slow in acknowledging it.

We all have bad days or or topics which stretch our patience, so I didn't take it personally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Beeches_Old_Boys

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_1#Category:Beeches_Old_Boys

I was going to close this one, but the target name doesn't appear correct, per the website. (The issue being the parentheses.) And I note that placing Jersey in parenthesis was merely a BOLD move in 2009. (Not finding any talk page discussion concerning it.)

As we're merely talking about punctuation, this shouldn't affect the closure. But I'd rather it cleared up before closing, to save cydebot the bother of a speedy. - jc37 05:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• We don't have a consistent strategy to disambiguating similarly named schools by location; some use commas and some use parens. The website slaps a "Jersey" at the end of "De La Salle" but later calls itself "De La Salle College" with no disambiguator, so it gives precious little guidance. Under these circumstances, I'd propose following the current article title.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• I can see arguments for either parenthesised or comma-separated dab, but I think that any further move of the head article would need a full discussion. As Mike notes, the school website seems to be confused about whether to include the word "College", so I don't see any easy answer.
  In the meantime, it seems simplest to go with the consensus to rename the category to match the current title of the head article, and do a speedy categ rename if the head article is moved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

CAKE

Commander v99 (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Commander v99 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 11 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)

Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani Old Fooians

Just a couple of weeks ago, I see that you nominated and successfully renamed a number of "Pakistani Old Fooian" categories here. Could you also do something about Category:Ravians too (i.e. rename it to Category:Government College University alumni) as I think your argument also extends to the naming of this category? Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. See the renaming discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 14#Category:Ravians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for that. I've given my !vote. Mar4d (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

typo fix

I hope you don't mind if fixed your typo here to avoid confusion fyi:[1] --KarlB (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish hospitality

If you keep talking sense about Category:Hospitals in Ireland you will give them nosebleeds, and then they will wrestle to decide on which side of the border to seek treatment. — O'Dea (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a grave risk.

Luvkily, so long as the current structure is retained, they can navigate easily between the Category:Hospitals in Northern Ireland and Category:Hospitals in the Republic of Ireland, by going through Category:Hospitals in Ireland. However, if they have their way, there will be no clear link between the two categories, so the poor divils will be lost somewhere on the bridge between Blacklion and Belcoo, haemorrhaging away :(

I hope we can rescue them from that fate! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Breach of CFD protokoll

What on earth is this about? This kind of petty nonsense is what puts people right off Wikipedia. The User already tried to plead ignorance at the CFD page, had the error of their ways gently pointed out, and then a few days later does exactly the same thing. One cannot plead ignorance twice. Mais oui! (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, right! It's so frustrating. There's another editor, who has been doing similar deletion of categories on hospitals in Ireland, before the CfD is finished: [2], [3], [4], [5]. We should stop this!

If you can't tell, I'm not serious - I actually agree with BHG's hospital edits, and she and I have been making many changes to this tree the past few days - she created a new category Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland, I created one as well Category:Teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland, and both of us have been diffusing and cleaning things up - so the Rotunda Hospital edit was just another diffuse. Sorry if it pushed your buttons the wrong way, but I promise I was not trying to violate CfD, I was just trying to diffuse. The rule seemed clear to me: "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision." If a hospital is categorized in multiple parent/child categories, isn't that the very definition of a duplicate? --KarlB (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Karl, I regret that I have to agree. I'm afraid that it has become very apparent that you are not serious.

Yesterday I made this comment at CFD in which I explained that "There are no hospitals in Ireland which straddle the border, but after starting to sub-cat Category:Teaching hospitals in Ireland into NI and ROI, noticed that is in fact a 32-county category, because AFAICS the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on a 32-county basis". You replied to that comment, but instead of reading it (or querying my grammatical lapse), you went ahead and re-created Category:Teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland only 30 minutes after I had deleted it. Yet now you defend your action on the grounds that it was uncontroversial.

Karl, you have made 2413 edits to wikipedia in the last 6 years. In a similar timeframe Mais Oui has made 40 times as many, and I have made 100 times as many. Everybody has to start somewhere, and there is no obligation on any editor to mkae a huge number of contributions ... but when you decide to try to restructure a long-standing arrangement in an area of huge controversy (subject to arbcom restrictions), it really would be a very good idea to try to learn a bit more about the complex resaons why a particular structure is in place rather than running around proclaiming evidence of silliness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the hospitals discussion here. Maioui accused me of violating CfD. It seems there are two controversial edits:

1. Changing the cats on Rotunda Hospital (which you yourself just reverted, so obviously you agreed with my edits)
2. Creating Category:Teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland - now, you recently created Category:Teaching hospitals in Northern Ireland, and I saw this as a logical creation alongside. In any case, if you disagree with Category:Teaching hospitals in the Republic of Ireland please put it at CfD and ask to have it deleted. That is a discussion I would love to watch. I am trying to adhere to the existing standards in the tree!!!! In any case, please tell me which one of these edits violated the CfD, and why??? And please don't accuse me of not being serious. If you say that, give me an edit that isn't serious. Any edit. --KarlB (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Karl, 1) please read WP:TPG and learn how to indent. 2) Please don't keep on tweaking your comment here, because it gives me a new notification every time you save. Use preview to polish your comment, then save. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Given your recent vote on the archeology, I'd appreciate your comments on the broader discussion I started. In spite of our disagreement over the hospital cat, we do seem to agree on the idea of putting immovable objects in the borders of the nation states which contain them. This is not a consensus view, but I'd like to see if we can get to some sort of workable guideline. otherwise, we will continue to have people insisting that since X was actually built in year Y, it must go in (no-longer extant) country Z. And I'm sorry if you were confused by my rationale, but if you read through my previous comments I think it will be hard for you to find a moment where I claim that things (at least, things which don't move) should not go within their current nation state borders.--KarlB (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Karl, you have written so many hasty ad ill-thought things at such length that it really s quite hard to figure out where you stand from moment to moment. I will try to take a look at the broader discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Archaeological sites in the Republic of Ireland

A cut-off of 100 yrs? Tosh. Thanks for posting this. Still cant believe that someone would use "it wasnt around" arguement? The world has changed more in the 100 years. Utter tosh!! Again thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tosh indeed.

Dunno why this happened, because the nominator vis usually a very level-headed editor. Maybe somebody spiked his drink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance would be greatly welcomed...

Hello there, Brown Haired Lass -- A few days ago (against my better judgement) I was roped into what I imagined would be a fairly simple CFD discussion, regarding a rather innocuous category that I had created a while back. It seems nothing is simple. <sigh> Would you be good enough to take a look at this discussion? As I said in the comment I just posted there, "I am just about at my wit's end." We may not always agree, but I know that you can always be counted on to size things up in very rational terms. Best regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

PS - Unlike some categories, I don't have any kind of personal investment in this one. I really don't even care what solution is arrived at, as long as the issues are properly dealt with. I am just worn out from the endlessly nonsensical discussion. Thanks in advance for whatever you might have to say! Cgingold (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Have commented at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Old X categories

This is not how you wanted it to go, I take it? Clearly you did an immense amount of work to make a case, and now Andy has figured out how to thwart that case in an unpin-the-grenade way. I'm sorry that happened. One thing you should know is that if you had reached a point where all but two or three categories were nominated and then said "But not these," I would have nominated them anyway, though with more tact, of course. Anyway, I think you deserve a huge amount of credit and thanks for your careful analysis and hard work over a long set of nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, for your kind words and the careful attention you have given to all these many many discussions.

Yes, I did do a lot of work, and I had a plan for how to proceed ... but neither I nor anyone else WP:OWNs the issue, and other editors are free to pursue a different path. I knew from early on that some editors (such as yourself) would want to go further than I do, and that some wouldn't want to go as far, so I had hoped that we could continue a fairly orderly climb up the ladder of prominence to allow editors to choose their own breakpoints and see where the limit of the consensus was. That hasn't happened, which I think is a pity, but one way or another we'll get an answer out of all this.

My one sadness is that Andy's nominations seem to bring into the discussions a bit of the class politics around the very exclusive schools involved. I think that is a pity, because as I noted in the Old Etonian discussion it seems to be as much a POV approach as that of some of the Old Fooians who demand retention because of the reputation of the school. I hope that that element doesn't dominate, and that editors on both sides of the dispute can focus on what titles will best help the readers to navigate between articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you muchly for making this intervention. I dunno what was going on with the comment we both replied to, but whatever decision is made will be a better one if the discussion focuses on the substantive arguments rather than on assumptions about each others's motivations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I think we have a sense of fatigue spreading; people can see the finish line, and they want to be there. That doesn't justify John Pack Lambert's approach, though. Based on his comment to me, he thinks you're being elitist on behalf of the British upper crust, which is a strange thing for an Irishwoman to do. I have asked him to knock it off.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 020

Ok. Fine. I'm sorry for disrupting you. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Beeches Old Boys

Should this nomination have led to a category with "the" in the name?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly not. It seemed to be to be the more grammatically accurate term, but if you think that there are grounds for dropping "the", then please feel free to propose a change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so, based on their website. I've nominated it at WP:CFDS.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. No objection from me! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the South African categories of this type. Please feel free to supplement with facts.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Will add my comments there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Temporary test category

Category:Temporary test category, 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BHG, for notifying me. (Dumb script ...). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

CFD/W

I reckoned that you had mistakenly entered the wrong CfD date in this edit to WP:CFD/W, so I changed it here before Cydebot got to work.

Hope I did the right thing ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, and thank you much. I had recently done a relist and must have had that stuck in my head I guess. - jc37 23:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is an easy mistake to make, and I have done it myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital

Perhaps I'm being over-cautious (not like I haven't been accused of that before : )

Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital seems ambiguous per the hatnotes at Christ's Hospital.

(Which is why I've been hesitant to close it.) Clarification/help with this would be welcome : ) - jc37 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. If the CfD hadn't been spammed with a deluge of tendentious nonsense from one editor, this sort of issue could have been examined there.

Anyway, I don't think that there is a problem. The hatnote at Christ's Hospital lists two other articles:

1. Christ Hospital (Jersey City, New Jersey) does not really pose any ambiguity issue, because a) the spelling is different (Christ Hospital, whereas the school is Christ's Hospital), and b) it is a hospital, not a place of education
2. Christ's Hospital of Abingdon appears at first glance to be more likely to cause ambiguity problems, because it uses the same spelling. However, per http://www.ch-of-abingdon.org/history.html its role in education was tiny, and they did not directly educate anyone. Instead they appointed scholars at Abingdon School, to which they also appointed Tesdale Ushers, who each taught six poor boys of Abingdon.
   So it would never be true to say that a boy was "educated at Christ's Hospital of Abingdon". The closest I can see to that is that a scholarship boy may have been "educated at Abingdon School on a scholarship funded by Christ's Hospital of Abingdon" ... or a poor boy may have been "educated by a Tesdale Usher of Abingdon School, with support from Christ's Hospital of Abingdon".

So AFAICS, "People educated at Christ's Hospital" is unambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If we permanently protect a Template are we not obliged to Watch the Talk page?

A couple of days ago I made a request for an edit to be made on a permanently protected template. However, it now seems apparent that no-one watches this Talk page, so I may as well have whistled in the dark.

Can you have a look at Template talk:Infobox former country and either fix the problem, or else temporarily unlock the template so that I can edit it?

Many thanks in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish townlands lists

Over the last year or so I have noticed several Irish townland lists. I really wonder what encyclopaedic value in contributed by any of the Irish townland lists most of which seem to be named "List of townlands in County XXX" like these and the sub categories of Category:Townlands of County Limerick like the "List of townlands in County Limerick starting with the letter B" like this, etc. Virtually none of these will ever have an acticle of their own. What does the list really show? A list of non-notable places. ww2censor (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:NIShape blue.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NIShape blue.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

persondata

You wrote in the persondata tfd:

As others have noted, metadata is an incredibly valuable tool in organising information, and as such its inclusion should be welcomed and encouraged. It is a pity that some contributors to this discussion appear unaware of the purpose of structured metadata, and I hopde that this does not influence the out come.

I wonder if you could explain a bit of what you mean by that. The template doesn't actually show up in the article presentation, though maybe it's used for computing some navigation stuff like ordering of articles in categories. That was already done with DEFAULTSORT though. So I still haven't figured out how persondata has an encyclopedic purpose. Can you give an example of how it's used to "organize information"? Thanks. 64.160.39.217 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

i don't believe you

Re User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Wikibreak ... 2012 has arrived! Nobody Ent 02:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

reminder...--KarlB (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Experienced Category Girl needed

... to have a look at the Film categories. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012_April 30#"Cinema of" templates re templates auto-populating mainspace categories, where I think your comments may be useful. WP:FILMCAT also looks a bit odd, as it spends most of its time explaining why non-diffusing categories are a bad idea, and then says at the end ("General categorization"), but not very clearly, that they can be in some cases. I think the whole caboodle needs some careful thought and effort to clarify and document what should be done. Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the helpful addition to the debate about the category 'English Transsexuals'. I'm a newbie to WikiPedia editing (please be gentle) but I had to smile as, perhaps more than anyone in the UK, I was responsible for promoting the "transsexual isn't a noun" philosophy, whilst a vice president of Press for Change and the campaign's most prolific policy writer. It's always lovely to see it repeated! Incidentally, I noted your warnings about citations on the entry for Shahnaz Ali (which I helped to commission) and, after the initial work by another contributor, I am working to shore up the quality of the references. This is difficult in places because many of the organisations she has worked with have ceased to be and didn't generate a web footprint mentioning her. However I have personally tracked down a few additional third party references in the last couple of days.

Kindest regards Christine Plainsense (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Plainsense (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plainsense

Thanks for the kitten! As you know, Wikipedia has a strict policy of taking a Neutral point of view, so I don't support the application to any group of terminology which they find offensive, so long as there are commonly-used neutral alternatives. That was clearly the case in this instance.

As to Shahnaz Ali, I think that I should point out a few things which a new editor may not be aware of. The first is that you should look at WP:COI, which discourages the use of Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. I am not sure what you mean by "helped to commission" the article, but please do check that you are not in breach of WP:COI.

Also wrt Ali, do remember that Wikipedia prefers reliable sources, which should be independent of the subject. That means that employers and co-workers are not great sources for Wikipedia's purposes, because an encyclopedia is a tertiary publication: that is, we aim to summarise and reflect secondary sources, using those secondary interpretations rather than those of the subject themselves. Our general notability guideline is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then it merits inclusion in wikipedia ... but otherwise, the page may be deleted for lack of evidence of notability. I believe in giving editors time to improve an article because proposing its deletion, and I hope that the article on Ali can be improved to meet our inclusion standards; but right now, it looks shaky. At present the only reference which would count towards notability is the BBC article, and since that doesn't even mention Ali by name, it would not be enough. Unless more references are founded to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the article should be deleted.

None of this is any criticism of Ali as a person, or any sort of judgement on the merits of her career. It is merely a reflection of the fact that as a tertiary publication, Wikpedia reflects what the secondary sources say. If the secondary sources are not there, we can't cover the topic. Good luck in finding more sources, and I hope that it can be done before someone slaps a {{notability}} tag on the article or nominates it at Articles for Deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and I will take note of what you say. The issue with the Ali entry is that, as in many cases of people from ethnic groups or other protected characteristics, there is a long term process which tends to under-represent peoples' contributions in the mainstream. As an equalities specialist I see this all the time. In this case it is a person who has made a massive contribution in her field but has not received commensurate recognition by being written about elsewhere. When I say 'commissioned' I mean that I asked a third party to consider how to write her up. I've only then become involved because I'm in a better position to dig out references. Please give us a little while to sort it out as better independent references can be procured. I've got to rush out now but I am attending to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainsense (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Late PS (back from long day away). You mentioned the BBC reference (something the original author included) and thought that it didn't mention Ali by name. I'm confused by that because the reference is to a half hour Radio 4 documentary which features her speaking (and credited as such) at several points. Her involvement in the Bradford 12 is documented well and I've added other references to bolster that. Anyway, it's probably best that I pull back. However I was simply trying to help. Kindest regards Christine / Plainsense (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page

I hope you flourish. These hyper tags are marked selfpublished source? and better source needed. I doubt a better one will be found. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I obviously was mistaken

... when I made this proposal, which is fine. I note in the past that you have put in very hard and productive work to standardise categories such as this in bulk, albeit for a different tier of education. The reason for this message is to ask your opinion, not on the individual proposal I made, but on this class of categories and the format of the category name in general. Fiddle Faddle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 16 May 2012‎

the end of the line

The last "Old (X)" categories seem to have been deleted today. Congratulations on bringing everyone around to a consistent position.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish rebels and Irish revolutionaries cats

Hi BHG, do you think its worth merging the Category:Irish rebels and Category:Irish revolutionaries categories together. There seems to be alot of overlap between the two? What makes someone a rebel and someone else a revolutionary? Since there never has been a successful Irish revolution, are they all rebels, or does rising in revolt against a government make one a revolutionary? Snappy (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, I think it's a good question, and a discussion worth having.

To my mind, a rebel is someone who strikes out against the powers-that-be, but a revolutionary is someone who has a plan to put something radically different in its place. That makes the two terms useful in political analysis, but I would never deploy them without clarifying the sense in which I am using them ... so I think they make poor categories because it is very hard to make a sufficiently clear, objective, and WP:NOR distinction.

However, I cannot see a case for merging the Irish categories unless also we merge the parent categs Category:Rebels and Category:Revolutionaries, and the other subcats. That's gonna be a monster of a CfD nomination, so maybe we should start with a preliminary discussion (or RFC)? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's sounds like a whole lot of hassle, maybe its best just to leave them then? Snappy (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a big discussion, and I can see plenty of scope for inflamed passions on various sides. I don't think that there is any solution here which can avoid some degree of mislabelling, but I think that there might be a better solution than the present one.

However, I don't have the time or energy for such a discussion right now, so I won't be opening the CFD. I don't blame you if you feel like giving it a miss too :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Can we just make peace? KarlB (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned comment templates

Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. --xensyria^T 19:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have done some of them, but need more input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated; I've replied there with a few suggestions. --xensyria^T 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Mayoites and List of Rimcollians

Greetings BrownHairedGirl,

I propose the renaming of the aforementioned lists to their respetives "x college alumni", as earlier done with another Indian school, The Doon School:- List of The Doon School alumni. There will then be some consistency in the parent category Category:Lists of Indian people by school affiliation. I don't know how to go about listing them for changing the name, hence, I require your help. Thanks! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  14:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick reply: see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How_to_move_a_page, which shows you how to do it.

If you need any more help, please let me know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Do I just move them or should i list them for discussion?? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A user breaching WP:VERIFY regarding a guy he "hates"

A countryman of yours, with a penchant for publishing hate-filled blog posts and obscene Edit summaries, is making a clear breach of official policy WP:VERIFY over at 2012 Indianapolis 500. That the User admits that he "hates the guy" hardly fills me with confidence for a smooth discussion. WP:VERIFY explicitly states that sources must directly support the information they are supporting. The official Indianapolis Motor Speedway ref that has been applied to the article supports Franchitti's nationality as being "Scotland", and nothing else.--Mais oui! (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Established consensus since 2007 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Motorsport/Archive 1#British vs English/Scottish/Welsh/etc, aka "The Passion of Some Flags") has all British drivers in CART/Champ Car/IndyCar identified in the articles with the British flag. In Dario's case, he is represented by the British flag in all American open-wheel related articles since he joined the series' in 1997. No-one is denying that he is Scottish, and that can remain on his profile page if need be; but per Wikipedia:MOSICON#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations the Union Jack is displayed with his name where required. Furthermore, Mais oui! has a POV issue as well as he has a national tie to the subject at hand. Discussion is taking place on the talk page of the article, and has been linked on WP:AOWR; judging by the lack of additional responses so far I may have to include WP:MOTOR in this as well. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You would have been far wiser not to link to that (ahem) "discussion", because the very first sentence gives the entire game away:

"I've been changing flags in Indy 500 results tables from English and Scottish to British. I noticed English and Scottish flags are prevalent in Champ Car and Indycar pages. Since WP:F1 has already done this, and WP:SCR follows this, I believe all motorsports projects should be harmonized and list English, Scotting, Welsh and Northern Irish drivers as British. --Pc13 11:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)"

Oh dear. A user explicitly admits that they have just trawled round every U.S. motorsport article they could find changing all the nationalities to British, contrary to express policy.

They would not have got away with that in 2012, but back in 2007 the British nationalist fervour on here was palpable, and got away with many such breaches of policy. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your clear national tie POV is showing with the way you worded your sentence there. You are trying to justify yourself based on a user, who back in THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN who made the bold move which was then subsequently accepted and the scheme which has been in use ever since. Also, what of Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart, who raced in the Indy 500 in the 60's? They were represented by the Union Jack back then, too. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"They were represented by the Union Jack back then, too" -> huh? What do you mean "too"? In addition to whom exactly? I hope that you do understand that you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source: the sources must be external and authoritative. Please supply a reliable ext ref showing that any Scottish competitor in the Indianapolis 500 raced under "the Union Jack". The IMS official website describes Clark's country as Scotland. As does the 1963 Sports Illustrated. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I am not going to use any admin tools here, partly because I don't have time to follow through on any actions taken, but more importanntly becuase I don't think that this is an admin issue.

I do have some observations to make, which I will add after dark (I am working outside, and need all the daylight). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear accidents

Hi, If you have time, I'd love to know what you think about the proposed Re-names for Category:Nuclear accidents. It's turned into a rather complex discussion - just your kind of thing! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Majesty's Government frontbench

Obviously I think I'm right, but I'm me so I would. I trust your judgement, so could you take a look? -Rrius (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look now :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 30 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry, I was sidetracked and arrived too late to comment. But I see that the nom has now been withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. 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. KarlB (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1265 - huh?

I have just discovered:

• Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1265 (see also 1290 • 1295 • 1298 • 1332 • 1366 • 1447 • 1467 • 1473 • 1536 • 1542 • 1547 • 1553 • 1560 • 1563 • 1571 • 1572 • 1584 • 1708)

I have seen some pretty eyebrow-raising things in my time here at Wikipedia, but giving the impression that the UK existed in the 13th century has got to win some kind of prize for stretching the envelope. The earliest correctly-named category is, of course, Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1801. Considering that the parent cat is Category:1265 establishments in England, I would have thought that a Speedy would have been sufficient, but since you are the creator and I know that you are not a big Speedy fan, I just wondered if you have altered your opinion since 2007?--Mais oui! (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mais Oui

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. You're right that I am not a huge fan of speedies -- in general I think it's better to have a discussion, or at least create an opportunity for discussion.

In this case, you are of course right that there is an anachronism. At the time I created these categories, I was thinking that a consistent naming formula was the best way to proceed, and that it was easiest to that by using the current title of the parliament ... but as you rightly note, that was in 2007.

Looking at again after 5 years, I think I can see another reason why I chose that format: it has the merit of being unambiguous. Even if we used the an adjective for the country in which those constituencies were created, then we would have "English Parliamentary constituencies" or "Irish Parliamentary constituencies" or "Scottish Parliamentary constituencies" ... which would obviously be ambiguous, and I hate ambiguous category titles.

It's important to remember that categories are a navigational device, and I think we should always remember that the main thing is to allow readers to navigate easily and rapidly between similar articles, as well as making it easy for editors to add categories.

However, five years on, I have become more concerned about avoiding anachronisms if it is possible without undue complexity. In this case, I think that it is easily done: simply replace the initial words with "Westminster", as in Category:Westminster Parliamentary constituencies established in YYYY or Category:Westminster constituencies established in YYYY. This would be unambiguous, it would avoid anachronisms, and it would work equally well for all periods.

What do you think of that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it. In fact, the same thought occurred to me a few hours after I left the message on your Talk page. It is worthwhile noting that there is already a "Westminster"-named constituency cat: Category:Historic Westminster constituencies in Ireland (and 2 of its subcats).

Another thing that subsequently occurred to me is that none of the pre-Union constituencies are currently navigable from Category:Parliament of England, which must obviously be rectified, but ought not to be too difficult. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! Seems like we got a solution we can both agree on :)

Before I do a CfD nomination, do you have any thoughts on "Westminster Parliamentary constituencies" versus "Westminster constituencies"? My own inclination is to think that "Westminster Parliamentary constituencies" makes it a little less likely that these categories will be confused with the subset of them relating to the City of Westminster, but it's not a great difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I posted at WT:UKPC to ask for input. See WP:UKPC#Categories_for_constituencies_by_year_of_creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Westminster constituencies is sufficient. Westminster is of course primarily known because of the parliament located there, not because of one tiny little constituency within that parliament. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"Westminster (Parliamentary) constituencies" would not work equally well for all periods, as Parliament has not always met at Westminster (see List of Parliaments of England). How about just "Parliamentary constituencies established in [date]" for anything before 1707? Parliamentary representation was so limited at this time that the national identifier seems like unnecessary disambiguation. Opera hat (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There were indeed interludes when the Parliament of England met elsewhere, but they were brief; the Palace of Westminster has been the seat of Parliament since the thirteenth century. For the overwhelming majority of its existence, the Parliament of England has been based in Westminster, and Westminster Parliament redirects to the current incarnation, Parliament of the United Kingdom. There are 59,000 hits on Google Books for "Westminster Parliament", and 1870 hits of Google News, so it is a widely-used term.

Omitting any identifier causes lots of problems. A consistent naming format allows for much easier navigation and category addition, and without some identifier we get clashes with other parliaments in the other parts of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that a national (or at least geographical) ambiguator is essential, cf Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of Scotland (to 1707) (still grossly underpopulated). And what about other early parliaments, eg in the Netherlands and France? Did they not have constituencies? --Mais oui! (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I just came by here having seen the notice on the UK Constituencies project page. My suggestion is to leave the category titles unchanged, because the vast majority of the articles listed are named 'UK Parliament constituency'. At least on the 1265 category page, there is a hatnote that clarifies that the entities being listed were created in the English Parliament, which is sufficient disclaimer.

I don't agree that "the earliest correctly-named category is, of course, Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1801". Not because the Union of the Parliaments was in 1707 but because, until and even beyond 1832, there were Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs. To retroactively rechristen them with the modern term constituency is to mislead the casual visitor to one of our constituency pages. But that argument is for another place and so let us leave the categories with names that reflect the names of the categorized articles. Sussexonian (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

input requested

Since it's rather difficult to get topics about in the isles passed without agreement from you and RA, perhaps you'd be willing to work with me on developing an article on the academics of archipelagic/postnationalist studies as had been suggested? I've placed some quick notes here: User_talk:Karl.brown/postnationalism and would appreciate your thoughts; if we get somewhere, I may take a crack at creating an article in userspace that you and RA can comment upon, and once the 3 of us are in agreement then we could release into the wild with a bit more confidence it might survive. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of centralising discussion, BHG, I've replied here. --RA (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at User_talk:Karl.brown#Postnationalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

AGF and a persistent issue

WP:CFD You closed this discussion with a rationale that I've seen from you several times. I hope this doesn't come across as condescending--I don't intend it at all--but do you honestly not understand what I'm trying to say in my nomination here? Is my post really that inscrutable to you or are you using this explanation as some kind of admonishment to reword things? I'd prefer if you post to my talk to respond or at least use {{talkback}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Justin

I have been closing the debates as I see them, and had hoped that you would pick up on the recurring problem.

If a debate has reached a clear consensus, I will close it and note that consensus, and in many cases there is little more to be said.

However, I have noticed several debates recent when there has been perhaps one commentator other than the nominator, and no clear outcome. Low participation does not necessarily mean no consensus, if there is a clearly set out proposal and a clear rationale, but where the rationale is unclear there's simply no way that the closer can read that as silence=assent.

What I have noticed in several of your nominations is that you provide so little information or explanation that some research is required to check what you mean. For example, if there you refer to a head article, then link to it: that way other editors can see what you mean without having to go ferreting. Without that sort of help, editors may just skip over the debate, and that's waht seems to have been happening with your terse and cryptic nominations.

The worst by far was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012_May_17#Category:Jazzland_Records_albums. Your main proposal was to rename per Jazzland Records/Jazzland Records (1960s)/Jazzland Recordings ... but the first links to the last, and Jazzland Records (1960s) is a redlink, so per what exactly?

Your alternate proposal was to "Close this CfD to retarget Jazzland Records and put a hatnote there directing users to Jazzland Recordings". What does this mean? "retarget Jazzland Records" to what? Where exactly is the "there" that you want the hatnote to go? (It can't go on the redirect, so presumably it goes on the target, but what exactly is the target? Do you propose putting a hatnote on a redlink?).

I'm pretty sure that you know what you meant, but your nomination did not convey any clear meaning. That affected how I closed it, so that had to be set out. I presumed that having made the nom, you would watch the debate and see the closure, so felt no need to leave a separate note. Will leave a talkback re this reply.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarity I'll grant that that one got a little complicated (and note that the redlink and redirecting are new--the proposal made more sense a few days ago...)

Again, please don't take this as being aggressive or condescending, but did you seriously not understand what I was saying with the above nomination? The main article is Dexter (TV series) and the main category is Category:Dexter (TV series). I'm accustomed to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy (see how many edits I've made there) and a lot of short-hand is used. In point of fact, the CfD in question was originally at speedy and got moved. I can only assume that if you are confused by this others are as well, but it seems pretty clear to me as someone who's been at CfD for a few years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I could have burrowed and might have found something, but if you knew what the head article is, why not take a few seconds to link to it? Otherwise everyone who wants to check has to burrow and guess, or at least waste time typing in the name to check whether it exists. To be honest, I find it rather dismissive of other editors if a nominator can't be bothered to even include some simple links.

If it's per the head article, then link to that head article. If it's per a parent category, then link to that parent category. Personally, I would have opposed that one even as a speedy, on the grounds of not enough info. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I appreciate your perspective--if this is happening to an experienced user, it must be happening to less experienced ones. Since the nomination is to move it from "Category:Dexter characters" to "Category:Dexter (TV series) characters", I would think that others would infer that the main article is Dexter (TV series) and the main category is Category:Dexter (TV series), but clearly that's not the case. I'll renom it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

On an unrelated note Do you still want this displaying? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Justin, did you see what happened at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 28#Category:Dexter_characters?

Your nomination spelled out the rationale briefly, but clearly. Editors didn't have to guess or infer what you meant. Instead of having to search for what they guessed might be the main article and parent category, they had clickable links in front of them ... and if they used popups, they could learn a lot by just using a mouseover. Big time-saving.

The result: 4 different editors have !voted, and there is a good chance of a consensus being formed. Isn't that much better than the single comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_20#Category:Dexter_characters? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

...Right... That's why I did it. I took your advice--that was the point. Also, at the risk of beating a dead horse, you realize that your editnotice says you're on a break that ended half a year ago, right? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. A bit of poking in both directions, and we each got something fixed :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Other ways

At Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_4#Category:Rich_Farmbrough_bugs you said there are other ways of organiɀing this material. I'd be interested to know what they are. All the best,

Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC).

Hi Rich,

I suggest that you just make a list on a user page. There are not many items in these categories, so it won't be difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 31#Category:GAR.
Message added 03:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Police brutality discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Cricket grounds

No problems with the CfR. I do however have a request to leave all the articles in Category:Football clubs in England. The reason being that I scan that category regularly to ensure that no articles on five-a-side teams have been created (as they are invariably tagged with this category). If they're sorted by county, it becomes a nightmare. Also I find it very useful in general to have all articles of a certain type in a main category. Thanks. Number 57 13:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I personally don't feel it's overcategorisation. When I go to a category like Football clubs in England, I expect to find all the clubs, rather than sifting through various sub-categories which may have a slightly different purpose (for example as sub cats of Sport by county or whatever). If it's ok by you, I'll add the removed ones back to the main cat. Cheers, Number 57 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not OK by me :(

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

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

I can understand removing the Sport in county category if there is a county category (originally there weren't any county football categories, hence the sport ones being ubiquitous. As I said, I think the main category is very useful. Perhaps it might be best to as WP:FOOTY before a mass removal of articles from it? Number 57 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sincere Request

• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia.)

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

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

Good call

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

Advice

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

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

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

Pointless closure of stubs for discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Moves of lists of peerages

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

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

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

Requested move

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

Hi again Valenciano

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

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

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

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

Yes, I'd suggest a new page.

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

There are 2 reasons for this:

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

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

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

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

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

Politics in the British Isles

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

Irish peer

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

Thanks and request for help

Hi thanks for saving one of the categories which were proposed for deletion by Arthur Rubin with whom I am having major issues with ("tinpot dictatorship"). See my talkpage for further information if your time permits. Thanks a lot for your help. --Anthrophilos (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I am glad we agreed on some categories.

I took up your request to visit your talkpage, and I'm afraid that I don't find so many occasions there where I could agree with you. I certainly don't see anything to justify the harsh words which you used above about Arthur Rubin, and I hope that you will strike out that personal attack. You may feel aggrieved, but that sort of language doesn't help.

What I do see on your talk page is a lot of evidence that as a relatively new editor, you are still unfamiliar with a lot of Wikipedia and guidelines. Please take time to learn how Wikipedia works, rather than attacking other editors.

I have also just noticed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_help_Admin_Arthur_Rubin, and suggest that you take careful note of the suggestions there that you risk sanctions for your own conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to drop by to say thanks for your support at ANI. You're too kind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I call them as I see them! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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

Hi #57

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments; this is exactly how I have worded articles I have created (e.g. this). The user in question has over the last couple of years been going through election articles and changing them to "Result" (as almost everyone else seems to use "Results", which seems far more natural to me). I found several articles recently and went through and changed them back. This was then reverted with a "no consensus for wholescale unilateral changes" rationale. I have since reverted again (also on the basis that I made the changes using AWB and fixed a few other things at the same time). I have left a message on the user's talk page, but am anticipating a hostile response. If you wouldn't mind commenting, perhaps things will calm down. Thanks, Number 57 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No problem and thanks. Unfortunately I was rather annoyed at the time I wrote that... Number 57 21:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

As the editor in question has started again on this, I have raised the issue at WP:Elections and referendums. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Number 57 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I see you are back, but didn't know if you'd missed this. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Number 57 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I have added my comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your input. As it's looking fairly one-sided (plus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_legislative_election%2C_June_2012&diff=498827281&oldid=498686485 this) I hope this is enough to satisfy the demand for consensus on the issue. Number 57 16:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing proposals at CFD

Hi BHG, you kindly offered guidance in this CFD closure where I had been chopping and changing. Please could I ask you to review CFD1, User talk:Fayenatic london#Procedural problem, CFD2 and User talk:Jc37#Cfd procedural questions? I have no complaint against either of the other editors in those discussions; I would just like your opinions on whether I could have done anything better, and on my suggestion for adding a note at WP:RELIST. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg. I have commented at User talk:Jc37#Cfd_procedural_questions. Hope it is of some help! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

• User_talk:Karl.brown#WP:BATTLEGROUND

I just left the above note on his talk page.

I'm in no way suggesting that you behaved inappropriately, though definitely there were some seemingly borderline situations, one could chalk at least some of it up to the contentious nature of the discussions - I have no doubt you would agree.

And I think you should probably have notified the discussion that you moved those pages. It's common practice, and helps transparency.

Also, just to note something for future reference that, again, I have no doubt you would agree with: When it comes to User:Karl.brown concerning the regional topics related to the British Isles/UK/Ireland/etc. (broadly construed), you appear to be WP:INVOLVED at this point, and so shouldn't be using admin tools or responsibilities (such as closing such related discussions or blocking him from editing).

I'm fairly sure you agree, if for no other reason than you invariably join in on such discussions rather than close them.

And of course this in no way suggests that you should avoid User:Karl.brown (or he, you). I sincerely believe that you are both well-meaning editors, have no doubt you and he can have fruitful discussions.

I mention this all, not only to (re-)affirm what I have little doubt you agree with, but also to maybe help karl understand that while you may be (to him) coming across as contentious or "out-of-control", you're actually attempting to convey your perspective through attempting to follow policy/common practice. And that it's possible to have a healthy debate, but without it being combative.

I hope this helps. - jc37 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mac/Mc curiosity

I have developed a very recent interest in Mac/Mc indexing, because the DNB project on Wikisource is going to get round to the M volumes, and this will be right towards the end of the project at least for the first edition (we can claim 21,700 out of about 27,000 odd there, so getting it done). It seems that the DNB regarded Mc, and M', as reading Mac for indexing: this is messing up my ASCII sorting to get ToCs right now. But it led me to think this business should be written down somewhere. For one thing, User:Magnus Manske might be enticed to write a tool to sort lists in that order, but his gadgets typically cover all the conventions (for his own job satisfaction).

I came across a remark of yours from 2007, so I know you personally do as the DNB did. I asked User:Shimgray as librarian, and he pointed me to collation as the correct term. Nothing there about this issue. My box of file cards has a divider with Mc on it, so it is obsolescent (perhaps) but not long gone. Do you have sources on this topic? It strikes me as a curiously interesting niche, as well as having scholarly value re early modern names as you were pointing out back then. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles

More power to the DNB project on Wikisource! I have been recently engaged in some leisurely research with a friend on the Cromwellian land-grab in Ireland, and since I am away from my own library and can't find my password for the DND, there were several points where the Wikiwource DNB helped fill in a few holes. I wish you all success finishing the good work.

I do recall that discussion in 2007, tho I couldn't recall the location. But I looked in my archives and I think that it might be User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 003#Henry_McLeish. Is that what you were referring to?

I am no librarian, and I'm afraid I don't have any sources on this. I was just going by what I know of the history of such names, and of usage in phone books. Looking around just now I see Alphabetical order#M.27.2C_Mc_and_Mac, but it offers no sources :(

Sorry I can't be of more help :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mc divider card.

Not at all. The old thread I found was Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Mac and Mc#Ordering of Mac, Mc and M' from 2007. Intriguing if this collation issue gets under the radar. Is it really the case that archaeologists will have to puzzle over something like my divider card? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I was particularly interested in the section below, Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Mac_and_Mc#Mc_vs._Mac, where one editor had gotten a response from the Library of Congress about their practice.

It does seem that there is a trend away from combining McX/MacX/Mcx/Macx etc, which is a great pity, because it means that a name may appear in one of 4 or more places in the index. I suspect (without any evidence) that this a product of the early days of computerised indexing, when computer time was v expensive and adding complexity to sorting algorithms. Whatever the reason, it looks to me like a great leap backwards :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

McX/MacX/Mcx/Macx should definitely be combined for indexing purposes. It is only in very recent times that spellings have been standardised, and even nowadays, a reasonably well-educated and well-informed reader of Wikipedia cannot be expected to know whether they are looking for Ramsay McDonald, Ransay MacDonald or Ramsay Macdonald. And I'm sure that we can even find a few contemporaneous sources which spell it M'Donald.--Mais oui! (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

MCDonald too lol. And add an apostrophe to each of the versions as well.

I am curious (since it's being discussed) How do we deal with O (O'reilly Oreilly O'Reilly)? And further, what about the O'Donalds and McDdonalds? (The reason i ask the latter is that I have several history books and geneology books which sort all names by ignoring the mc/mac and the O, when sorting.) - jc37 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the O' needs to be considered at the same time. I have tended to index it as "Oreilly", but we really should have a guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's some oldish chat about the issue.[7] It clarifies that letter by letter alphabetization is taking over in the style guides (which I don't find at all surprising, but all the more reason to write up the old stuff for reference). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And there is plenty to make a basic article with: User:Charles Matthews/Drafting area/Mac and Mc sorting. I'd really like a source that talks in terms of tokenising, though, because that has explanatory value for four variants, all of which are probably out there (if the token is T, we may have L < T < M or M < T < N; and we may read T as Mac or Mc). Charles Matthews (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Good start on the article! Hope it makes its way to mainspace.

Like Mais Oui, I still favour combining the variants, but per the link you supplied I fear that I may be swimming against the tide.

I will ask User:DGG to put on his librarian's hat, and see if he has anything to add. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to see current practice is to look at examples in Open Library or the Library of Congress Authority file. Names like O'Connor are always filed as a single word. For names like Mac Donald, the almost universal practice is also to run them together, but this is not totally consistent--and it is not easy to tell if inconsistencies are errors or valid exceptions. Names like Mac and Mc are always filed separately as written. Accent marks are always ignored. (Redirects should of course be made from any likely possible form). Earlier library practice varies. British practice sometimes follows earlier rules than in the US. Non-English practice varies--I always try some test cases before doing extensive searching in an unfamiliar catalog. . Practice by book publishers varies. Distinctions are sometimes made between the name as an author heading and the name when it appears in a title. Libraries usually include a note on the exact spelling of the title at hand even when the file it differently. I suggest everything here should be normalized to current Open Library practice. It is, in particular, very important for us to keep consistent with Open Library, & I would follow them even if I disagreed with them. If Open Library and LC disagreed, I would go here by Open Library, though in a library context I would do the opposite. From my experiences with OL, we are much more flexible, and to get OL to change their practice to ours is not feasible. There is a good comparison in a NISO tech report, [www.niso.org/publications/tr/tr03.pdf] but what they recommend is not what Open Library does nor what libraries do, as is frequent for NISO and ANSI. Another good comparison is the Archival standards discussion in [8] A good and very clear presentation of what libraries do is at [9]--though informal, the CRS is widely used by libraries as a practical reference.

It is a little clearer to say that libraries go meaning-unit by meaning-unit, rather than call it word by word. Some libraries do use letter by letter, especially in card catalogs in public libraries. I find it infuriating. But one thing is clear in all modern systems: it goes basically by the written form, not sound. That a person may not know how something is spelled is handled by cross-references. The earlier LC practice was to go by how it would sound in the language of the title. Expanding abbreviations in unfamiliar languages is not easy. And in card catalogs it is very expensive in terms of space to have cross references; this is not true in online data bases.

Charles, any practice in a 1938 book on libraries is of historical interest only. And practice in archives is different from libraries--archives follow original forms in much more detailed ways than libraries do; your Yale example is about their archives.And rare book libraries also make distinctions not made in general catalogs. But even there if you recheck you will see that you will see that "Names beginning with M,' Mac, and Mc (e.g., McLaughlin) are filed alphabetically under Mac; names beginning with "St." (e.g., Louis Stephen St. Laurent) are filed alphabetically under Saint. However, the names are typed in the finding aid according to their authority heading (e.g., St. Faith's House, or McLaughlin)" Note that their rule for M/Mc/Mac is the same as OL's. Their rule for St. is different.) DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we are now talking about at best an obsolescent system, and in many places one that is obsolete. Fit for a Wikipedia article, though. The history is going to be impressionistic for a while. Anyway, here goes, I'm moving it out as Mac and Mc together. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What would be a good article title? Charles Matthews (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping I would be able to deter you from moving it into mainspace. It's wildly incomplete & unrepresentative. The question before me is now whether to stop everything else and write what amounts to a long review paper on the several different subjects discussed in it--see the article talk p. The question of how to handle name prefixes and is different from how to handle abbreviations, how to conflate different languages in a single listing, and how to handle umlauts and the wide variety of accent marks. Even were there an ideal solution, it wouldn't be the same for all uses. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

David, this is a wiki! And your perspective is not mine here.

I'm trying to record a historical phenomenon, on the basis of actual sources. Of course it's incomplete: when is history not. (I have to say I'm piqued to think that I may have provoked your inner deletionist.) WP:CHANCE and so on.

Anyway it would be good to have help of whatever kind. Talk:Mac and Mc together is active, and {{sofixit}} applies as ever. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency). Since you had some involvement with the Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have commented at the RFD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DRV

Whatver your knowledge of the background of this might be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 2#Category redirects Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hi BHG, your opinion here would be great. --HighKing (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, HighKing, but my knowledge of Irish has rusted away to a pile of dust. I would like to help, but couldn't contribute anything of substance.

Thanks for asking, and sorry I can't help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary tool

That's a cool tool on your user page, but the link you've got is pointing to the dead version of it. You should change it to this. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Link updated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfinished business at WP:CFD

Hi. There are two open discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 13, regarding stub templates/categories for artists born in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was consensus to merge these two sets of stub categories, but the whole matter seems to be held up over your procedural objections related to where stub discussions should occur. I haven't followed that particular discussion, so I hesitate to wade in, but I'd like to make a plea for putting these CFDs out of their misery. Every article in these stub categories is currently displaying the CFD template (see Benjamin West Clinedinst for an example), which absolutely should not be appearing on articles (it's an ugly addition to article space, and article readers can't tell what category it refers to). Please, can these two CFDs be concluded without waiting for resolution of the Wikiprocedural issue? Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Amphibians of Italy

I tried to create this category but got a message that the category had existed but was deleted. I wonder if there is a reason to keep it like that? Currently most Italian amphibians are in "Reptiles of Italy" - which contains fewer reptiles than amphibians. Micromesistius (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Frederick Hutchinson

Need your help pse. Earlier today I created an article about Charles Frederick Hutchinson, Liberal MP for Rye 1903-06. I tried to create a link to his contributions in Parliament through the Hansard site but all I am getting is a message saying they have no-one of that name on their system. This is madness not just because he was the MP for Rye but because I found pages on Hansard for him for 1903, 1904 and 1905 when I was researching the background.

Any help would be deeply appreciated.

Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham Lippiatt (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 August 2012‎

Hi Graham, congrats on yet another useful article on an MP.

I have fixed the Hansard link in one of these edits. The trick to getting these links to work is to search the Hansard site either for the MP or for the constituency, and find the MP's page that way. Then the correct format of the name can be copy-pasted into the Wiki article.

In this case I went to http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ and followed the links to constituencies, from where I went to constituencies beginning with R, and scrolled down to the entry for Rye 1660-1983. On that page, I found the link to Mr Charles Hutchinson March 17, 1903 - January 12, 1906 ... and I snipped off the last part of the url to paste into wikipedia: mr-charles-hutchinson.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is brilliant, many thanks. I will keep the guide above for future use. Thanks also for your appreciation of the article itself. Graham Lippiatt (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of United Kingdom general elections

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of United Kingdom general elections , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, thanks for your work. I noticed you linked dates here. Please note that this is not normally done on en.WP. Tony (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony, checking the history shows that this edit and this edit introduced the linked dates; BHG did not make either edit. BHG simply added a category or two. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bencherlite.

Tony1, you appear to have been an editor for 7 years. That's long enough to learn how to read diffs before you rebuke an editor again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire North (UK Parliament constituency)

Hi! You recently created a redirect, Buckinghamshire North (UK Parliament constituency), but unfortunately it appears to loop back to itself. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but I haven't been able to identify an alternative target and fix it myself. Please could you take a look? Thanks, – Wdchk (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, and for letting me know. That was sloppy of me, but it's now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gershom Stewart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wirral and Labour Party (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) 11:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Both issues now fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)