User talk:Grutness/archive55

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

List of bays of Scotland

Hi @Grutness: I think some of the links you put in are misses. It Scotland. scope_creep^Talk 00:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just been correcting all the links - someone else put them in. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Walked into that one with my eyes open. Sorry, Start again. Excellent work. Thanks. How are you? scope_creep^Talk 01:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not bad - thanks for starting the bays list. There's going to be a lot to add from the northwest of the country! Grutness...wha? 01:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

List of contemporary ethnic groups.

Hi! I just saw your discussion on the Talk:List of contemporary ethnic groups, and I just want to ask: can you clarify what you mean? Rjrya395 (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Contemporary" has two meanings. It's come to mean "present day", but its earlier and still more widespread meaning, particularly in archaeology and anthropology, is "at the same time". So while you're actually trying to list present-day ethnic groups, many of the more likely users of the page might expect the page to be lists of ethnic groups who were contemporaries with each other.Grutness...wha? 05:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, but I'm just an editor who ended up taking full control of that page. Rjrya395 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No-one "takes full control" of a page - it's against Wikipedia policies to do so (see WP:OWN). Grutness...wha? 23:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Chicago school architecture

Thanks for going through and categorizing buildings into Category:Chicago school architecture in Illinois. Are you planning to categorize buildings in other states as well? I ask because there are three existing categories for the style that call it the Commercial style: one's for Illinois, which should probably be merged into your new category, but Iowa and Wyoming don't have corresponding categories yet, and we may want to just rename the existing categories. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't know about tat. Currently I'm going through all the "what links here" on Chicago school. With any luck i'll have time tomorrow to do a few more state categories. "Commercial architecture" is a bit of a problem - some buildings seem to have been classified as that simply because they're old-style brick strip malls and don't have much connection with Chicago style - but it certainly does make sense to change category names rather than do a whole new parallel set-up. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The brick strip malls are a quirk of how the National Register of Historic Places categorizes its architectural styles. It tends to use "Commercial" for both more traditional Chicago school buildings and smaller-scale buildings from the same era that used similar design principles, which is fine but also covers a lot of early 20th century Midwestern commercial buildings. To confuse matters though, it also categorizes some buildings as "Early Commercial", and nobody on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places has ever quite been sure what that means. I'll leave a comment there to see if anyone has thoughts about the category structure here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Grutness...wha? 15:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:John F. Kennedy memorials

Hey there, Just wanted to let you know that I replied to your note on my talk page a few days ago. (I even pinged you, guess it didn't get your attention.) Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops - sorry - heading there now :) Grutness...wha? 00:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tariki, New Zealand

Hello, Grutness,

Thanks for creating Tariki, New Zealand! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh. Hi @Boleyn: Yeah, I simply created a temporary stub to fix a redlink. I'm hoping to get onto expanding it soon. No offence, but it's always wise to check a user's history before suggestions they know well - thanks anyway :) Grutness...wha? 01:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

American presidential building categories

I saw your work on categories like Category:Presidential libraries. I'm wondering if you have any opinion on how to handle the categorization of a different kind of American president, the President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis. We have articles on Jefferson Davis Presidential Library and Museum and his home, Beauvoir (Biloxi, Mississippi). Is it OK to categorize them under the American categories, which have descriptions specifying that they apply to USA presidents? If so, should we change the description? Or is it better to create single-article categories for a defunct-if-it-ever-existed nation? See Category talk:Presidential homes in the United States. Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Good question. To be honest, I'm not sure. Technically, he's an American President even though he was never a President of the USA. And being the only holder of that office, a parent category would be deleted because of WP:SMALLCAT. I think I'd hedge my bets and just leave him where he is in Category:Monuments and memorials by person and Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful reply. I had some vague impression about the rules, but now that I look at WP:SMALLCAT I see that there may be an exemption for categories that are part of a larger category scheme. It gives the example of Category:Flags by country, which contains the single entry category Category:Flags of Namibia. If there was an overall category for "Presidential libraries by country", then it'd make sense to have a CSA entry. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, I guess I'll just leave those categorizations as they are. The CSA's status as a short-lived, unrecognized nation makes it hard to fit into any tidy scheme. Mobi Ditch (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As you say, it's part of an overall scheme with lots of countries, which is the main difference. Also it's not impossible that Namibia will some day have a different flag. I don't think many countries other than the US (if any) have official presidential libraries, and there's never any likelihood of another one. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Grutness, wow! cats added within 2mins of article creation, thanks!:))

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Aww - that's cute :) Thank you! Grutness...wha? 06:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Links

Thank you for letting me know in regards to red links! Appreciate it :) --TheDomain (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Fred Strachan

This chap hasn't got an article yet (he sure is notable!) and he's not the youngest person either. Maybe it's a good idea to take a photo of him at some point 'just in case'. Do you think you might come across him? Schwede66 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd not heard of him... I don't think there's much chance I'd see him, to be honest. It's possible some other Dunedin Wikipedian might though... User:Dushan Jugum, perhaps? 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you are clearly not interested in rowing then. He's had a significant contribution with the 1972 New Zealand eight. He's still at it! Schwede66 09:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really. I categorised a few rowing articles recently, but it's not really an interest of mine. Grutness...wha? 09:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't really explain why the sport interests me as I've never been involved in it myself. In fact it's a mystery to me. But I am fascinated by it. Schwede66 09:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

James Ross

Hi Grutness, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to James Ross because guidelines say that red-linked entries should have a link to an existing article (MOS:DABRED) and that they should not contain external links (MOS:DABEXT). Leschnei (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Leschnei: - guidelines must have changed at some point! For the past ten years or more, redlinks have been encouraged if there were also redlinks from other articles pointing to the same target, and standard procedure was to link them with an external link to show notability! I agree that there should also be a blue link to an existing article though. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've only been on Wikipedia for a couple of years, so I'm still trying to get a grip on the ins and outs. As I understand it, the (current) idea behind disambiguation pages is to guide readers to existing content, so orphan red links and links that leave Wikipedia are not useful. Leschnei (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Redlinks in articles are much more useful, since they point out articles which need to be made. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

By the way PamD found an article for James Ross (artist) that I missed, so that one has been put back. Leschnei (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Avon river named after the Stratford Avon?

I am curious who these people are who believe the river is named after the Stratford Avon. I have lived over in Diamond Harbour for several years and have family in St Martins and I have never heard mention of this analogy. Are there sources to corroborate this ? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty common belief. I've definitely been told by people from Christchurch that that was the reason for the name. I'll see if I can find any sources. Grutness...wha? 13:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh. Ironically, the first source I looked at for the name origin confusion claimed that it's sometimes believed that it's named for the River Avon which runs through Christchurch in Hampshire! I think I've found where my Christchurch friends' idea came from though - [1]. Grutness...wha? 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

You could look Fontarón please? DJose Méndez (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@DJose Méndez: Looks OK to me - I've added a template saying there is more information at the Spanish-language Wikipedia which could be translated for use here. Other than that, it's a reasonable stub article with enough references. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Māori people stubs

Kia ora, Grutness. Per your suggestion I've removed the speedy renaming request for Category:Māori people stubs and I've listed it at CfD for full discussion. Feel free to comment there. I also left a comment at Stub sorting/Proposals regarding the Indigenous North American bio stub templates. Ngā mihi. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ka pai. Thanks :) Grutness...wha? 14:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Croughton

What I know of Croughton is that it has an air base covered with American radio comms masts, just like its partner along the B4031, RAF Barford St John - which we could see out the kitchen window of Mum's old house in Barford St Michael.

Do you still live in the area? There is a meetup in Oxford in nine days time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: No - couldn't be much further away in fact - I'm in New Zealand! I still keep up with a few of my old schoolfriends in the area, though. The air base has grown a lot since I was in the area (we were in the non-military part of the village). I remember that the shop that my parents ran accepted both sterling and dollars. My parents almost moved to closer to your mum's place, Deddington. Grutness...wha? 12:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I was at Deddington Primary School, 1969-76. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I was at Croughton C of E primary at about the same time! Grutness...wha? 00:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On the matter of RAF Croughton, did the news services in NZ cover this story? It was on the UK nationals for a day or two, and BBC South Today are still covering it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but only as a small item - made the newspapers but I don't think it was covered on TV news. They didn't mention it was Croughton, but it was easy to put two and two together. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank of Otago

Remembering your (still unresolved in WP) concepts of stock and station agents am watching your edits with much interest. Please would you fix up poor old Larnach. Eddaido (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy First edit day!

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 03:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Grutness/archive55,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I might jut d that - thanks :) Grutness...wha? 03:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition of pseudoscientific category

Hello! Recently I've noticed that you've added a category designating various aquatic creatures and purported monsters as "cryptids". As cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and this promotes the notion these these creatures are what adherents of the subculture calls "cryptids", this falls in the category of WP:PROFRINGE. I've since removed these categories. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Erm - you do realise there is a long-standing family tree of cryptids in Wikipedia, and that as such these articles should be part of it? This is in no way a promotion of fringe theories as per WP:PROFRINGE, which I suggest you read before correcting any more valid edits. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

None of those articles contain a single reliable source discussing cryptozoologist interest in these topics, and the application of categories claiming any particular entity is what cryptozoologists call a "cryptid" certainly falls well into he category of promotion of fringe theories. We don't allow it for Young Earthers or any other pseudoscience proponents, and I don't see why we should be making any exceptions for this particular subculture. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What? No cryptozoological interest in the Loch Ness Monster? Or in the Waitoreke (which I was involved in a scientific search for)? Surely you jest. And whether you don't see why or not is irrelevant to an existing scheme on Wikipedia which has passed muster from a host of other editors. If you have any objections to the categories and their population, take it through proper channels to WP:CFD or some related process page. Don't simply decide on your own whim that they have no place in Wikipedia and depopulate them. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Find a reliable source discussing cryptozoologist interest in these topics, and we can include the category. In the mean time, I ask that you please self-revert your reversions. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's take one at random - the last one I reverted: Steller's sea ape. That has an entire section on the research history of the cryptid, yet you clearly didn't think that was enough for it to be regarded as a cryptid. Several others that I reverted had similar sections. Your blanket de-categrisation points to you taking no account for scientific research interest, so bringing it up now seems a bit strange. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That article says nothing about fringe proponents such as cryptozoologists—you're introducing the term "cryptid". Folklorists, biologists, and historians do not use the term "cryptid"—they do not assume there's really sneaky dinosaur or monster hiding somewhere and decide to employ all sorts of fanciful notions of monster hunting. Instead, they take into account a creature or claim's cultural context and history without the need for pseudoscientific terminology. As for looking at what you're blanket reverting, your blanket reversions restored several fringe sources along the way that I had removed (like this one, and you even managed to revert a vote I made on an article for deletion. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

That was an accident for which I apologise. As for restoring those sources, again it was my mistake, but if it appears that one editor is going on a lone crusade then that is liable to happen when their edits are reverted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

To get back to an earlier claim of yours that other fringe groups are not catered to with categories on Wikipedia, have y taken a look at Category:Paranormal and its subcategories? They are heavily populated with items that are at least as fringe as cryptozoology. Perhaps you'd like them all deleted? Grutness...wha? 03:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't blame me for your mistakes. That is no way to have a conversation. Additionally, please go back and remove th fringe stuff you've restored after I took the time to check them out and remove them.

I regularly edit in pseudoscience categories, and the term "paranormal" is not the byproduct of a pseudoscientific subculture (everyday people use the term "monster", bot the faux-science-y "cryptid", for example). Folklorists regularly write about belief in the concept of paranormal, which is widespread and not restricted to pseudoscientific approaches such as ghost hunting. We write about what reliable sources have to say on the topic, just as we do anything else. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you for my mistakes. And I thoroughly agree with the problems of patrolling categories (something I've been doing here for a long time). The problem seems to arise from the use of the term cryptid for those categories. If the categories were titled, for example, Category:Lake monsters rather than Category:Lake cryptids, it might cause less contention. But as things stand, the term cryptid is used for the categories, and so those are the categories used. If you wish to change the names of the categories (I certainly would support that move if you did), then -as mentioned before - WP:CFD is the place to go. As you yourself say, using "cryptid" categories suggests some support of fringe theories, even if that is not in any way intended. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries about said mistakes and I think you're right about CFD. To be clear, I don't suspect you're intentionally promoting any sort of fringe theories or anything like that. Really, "lake monster" is the category we should be using here for a lot of these, and we do have some holdovers from previous attempts by cryptozoologist users long ago on the site to turn the site into a sort of pseudoscience compendium, and so those categories need to be replaced with something more accurate (it seems to happen with all fringe stuff, and some of them appear to have left the subculture behind for folklore studies, actually). The step you recommend is wholly reasonable, and I probably should have been done it a long time ago. However, I think it'd be appropriate to just swap the categories for more accurate categories in the mean time, like the one you propose above. I'll go ahead and create it. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Excellent :) Last thing I want is to get into a serious argument with another experienced editor! A bulk CfD proposal would definitely be worth doing soon though. Grutness...wha? 03:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly and agreed. Thank you for insight and recommendation, Grutness. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and again apologies for any annoyance caused! Grutness...wha? 05:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) What a pleasure to read a talkpage discussion where two editors begin in conflict and have a rational conversation ending in agreement. Sadly rare, both on-wiki and elsewhere. Season's greetings to you both! PamD 07:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - you too! :) Grutness...wha? 08:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yuletide cheer to you both! :) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

And to you! Grutness...wha? 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)