User talk:Mike Selinker/Archive10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename of Category:ISO 8859[edit]

Hi. Recently I requested a rename of Category:ISO 8859 to Category:ISO/IEC 8859. I had already recategorized the articles to the new category, and created a new, temporary page at Category:ISO/IEC 8859, with the intention that Category:ISO 8859 would be moved over it to preserve old edit history. However, maybe I did not make clear I was asking for a rename rather then delete before you deleted it. So now I am requesting that you undelete the old category and process the move correctly. Lmatt (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see you've done the undelete of Category:ISO 8859. I'm not able to move categories, so could you move it over the existing Category:ISO/IEC 8859. Thanks. Lmatt (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're asking me to do here. The category contents are all in the new category that you requested. I can't move the edit history of the previously named category.--Mike Selinker(talk) 19:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had no idea categories could not be moved. I have copy and pasted the content that was left inCategory:ISO 8859. What is the best way forward now, delete again or redirect maybe? Lmatt(talk) 20:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will redirect it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield CfD[edit]

Do you think there might be some canvassing or sockpupperty going on in this discussion? Thanks.--Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funny you should mention that. I was just looking into that. I will let you know if I find any.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about this discussion? (It seems fairly obvious to me that tft and lll are one and the same.) I would suggest a relist ofCategory:V-weapon subterranea. Oculi (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems reasonable to me. However, as the subject of a multipronged attack by these people (or, if your hunch is right, person), I would rather not do so myself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request (sort of)[edit]

Hey Mike. I just saw your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30#Category:Children's books about death and agree with it, but it does mean the attribution has been lost. Is there any way you could follow Roscelese's suggestion at the CfD of undeleting it, then moving it to, say,Talk:Children's books about death/original and then deleting the redirect so the category no longer exists, but attribution is preserved? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing's ever lost. I created the /original page, which you can do with as you please.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


69.46.35.69=Target for Today?[edit]

Hi Mike. User:69.46.35.69 has weighed in quite vigorously on a number of noms relating to User:Target for Today and judging from the IP's edit history. it would appear that they're one and the same. There's no socking or duplicate !voting that I can see, so I suppose there's nothing to be done, right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, wait, I see you were aware of this possibility a couple of days ago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the IP implies that the two are not the same in a response on the Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield CfD where he writes: "I have about 500 edits posted in the last 6 months (doubtfully more than 100 per month) and I don't know how many Target has." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed that. I certainly don't see anything like 500 editshere, but that's perhaps due to the nature of shifting IP addresses. I will say that this IP seems to have devoted himself solely to defending and populating Target's categories of late.(talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drake songs, Category:Drake albums[edit]

I was wondering why you said "cfd close" on categories that still have open CFD discussions on them?76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because I didn't notice that there were even more discussions about these categories. I thought they were leftovers from the last times we had those categories up, which was very recently. I'm closing them now, and will salt them if they are recreated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animated webcomics[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_19#.28X.29-related_websites was just closed. In the process of trying to re-sort the websites in Category:Animation-related websites which offer web animation (instead of being about animation) I noticed another related category Category:Web animation and its subcategoryCategory:Animated internet series which is closely related. What do you think? Are you up for moving the pages which are not about animation, and then renominating the category? – Pnm (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just renominated the category, so I'm loath to do anything with the contents. But bring it up there and maybe a more global solution will be found.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT sports people[edit]

Hi, Mike. Would you mind terribly reviewing your decision on the LGBT sportspeople categories? That discussion can be found here. I ask for four reasons:

  1. Your reasoning was basically WP:OTHERSTUFF. The discussion was not about Category:LGBT musicians by nationality, which has roughly 671 pages (all in subcats), but about Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality, which only has 172. If I thought it would grow by 10 times that number, I might consider splitting by nationality, though my next point addresses that. As it is, it isn't large enough by far to consider splitting by nationality.
  2. The category is already split by sexual orientation / gender identity, so splitting by nationality is redundant.
  3. In your reasoning, you mention the third thing - this kind of triple intersection is to be avoided. And that's especially true given the above point.
  4. Your closing of the CfD didn't address the reason I brought the categories up for discussion in the first place -WP:OCAT#Intersection by location says "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." Lesbian curlers from Nairobi are not inherently any different from lesbian curlers from Russia, Canada, or any other category - so subcategorizing by geography doesn't make any sense.

Thanks for your time and attention. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand your position, but I did not feel the discussion supported it. I used surrounding categories to justify the decision, which is a time-honored approach on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, shouldn't the talk pages of the categories that were discussed be appended with some infobox that informs of the nomination for deletion and a link to that discussion? __meco (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just didn't get to it right away.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if using surrounding categories to justify the decision is a "time-honored approach on CfDs", but that strikes me as an incorrect approach. In this case, for example, the surrounding categories have been subcategorized by nationality when they probably shouldn't have, for the reasons above. Even the Musicians category probably shouldn't be subcategorized by nationality - yes, US Musicians has a rather large number, but none of the other Musician-by-nationality categories has more than 100, and most of them have less than 10. The entireCategory:LGBT people by occupation and nationality tree is a mess. Most significantly because of the triple-intersection issue that you mentioned, but most fail Over-Cat in a major way - see Category:LGBT radio personalities by nationality for example. If they are all done incorrectly, but we can't change them due to this "time-honored approach", how can we fix the situation? And finally, how does an unwritten approach take precedence over the actual written guideline involved, namely WP:OCAT#Intersection by location? -- SatyrTN (talk /contribs) 17:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you disagree. I suggest that you nominate the whole tree and see what happens. Meantime, please repopulate the categories you emptied out of turn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I repopulated the categories before I started writing you. -- SatyrTN (talk /contribs) 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I do believe that if the tree falls, this branch will have very little support. Let's see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places names in Nebraska[edit]

Hi Mike, I just closed this CFD and left a note asking User:Freechild to create the list(s). Would you watch the categories and delete them when listified? If he doesn't get round to it within a sensible time then I'd be prepared to start the page(s). – Fayenatic (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't think that the close will be opposed by anyone. (Less by me since you obviously read my comments : )
But last I checked non admins aren't supposed to close discussions with results of 'delete'. (Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions)
Just for future reference, if nothing else.
Thanks for helping clear the backlog : ) - jc37 00:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so. And in my opinion, that is an incredibly dumb rule. Why would we not want people to learn how to be admins before we make them admins?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I would like to agree wholeheartedly with you, not every non admin closer is as conscientious asFayenatic seems to be. To say that there have been problems in the past with others would be putting it mildly.
And note, as I was trying to make clear by the tone of my message, it wasn't of chastising whatsoever, merely informative. My apologies if that was unclear. - jc37 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. The solution, then, is for Fayenatic to become an admin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rofl. couldn't have done that better than if you and I had planned it in advance (we obviously haven't).
I'll start going through their contribs, and leave you to whatever arm twisting is needed : ) -jc37 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive03. They might not look back on me with kind memory : )
But I have to say, regardless of disagreeing, Fl remained very civil throughout. And that's a key thing for me. (User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria)
I'll keep looking through contribs. Please drop me a note when you've broken the news to them : ) -jc37 05:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed the above. "Bygones!" No hard feelings about that old stuff, Jc37. Mike here, anduser:Timrollpickering before him, have both encouraged me to help with CFD and offered to do the admin stuff afterwards. But I guess I can find the time to get round to RfA. Sounds like you're saving me the trouble of nominating myself, is that right? – Fayenatic (talk)08:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it has been suggested before, most recently by Mike. (e.g.1 234) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(de-dent) Was reading your links and was surprised. Mike was "dragged" into being an admin? I wonder how that could have possibly happened : ) - jc3710:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Anyway, I've nominated Fayenatic for adminship. Jc, you can either co-nominate or give support later, as you like. Fayenatic, you should click on that link and fill it out (assuming you decide to go through with it), and then let me know and I'll transclude it to the RfA page for other people to weigh in and ask questions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your kind words and thorough nomination, and Done! – Fayenatic (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Occurs to me that someone should ask Timrollpickering if he would like to co nom as well. -jc37 19:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put a note on his page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw Mike is too quick (he sees a good thing and goes for it - not necessarily a bad trait : )
And trying to remember... I wonder who helped "drag" me into it too?...
Anyway, I'd be happy to co-nom.
I had just wanted to ask a question or two (for one thing to see if we were really railroading you, or if you didn't mind the extra responsibilities of the mop).
And had intended to add User:Jc37/RfA/General questions and wanted to give you time to answer them, before opening it.
c'est la vie : ) - jc37 18:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Hope it helps. GL : ) - jc37 19:29, 11 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I transcluded it without noticing that the optional questions hadn't been answered. Fayenatic, if you'd like to answer Jc's questions, please do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Since Jc37 had reminded me about it, I thought of referring to the deletion of category:Female stock characters as an example of IAR, but came up with one of my own! ;-) – Fayenatic(talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of you look at the recent page history of the article I just edited and remove any allegations that need to be purged? assuming you have Rollback. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like you've removed all the allegations, and put them on the talk page. That seems fine to my untrained eye.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were also allegations that I deleted and didn't paste back. Maybe rollback is not what I was thinking of – I thought there was a tool to remove/hide certain edits from the page history, to remove potentially damaging material altogether. – Fayenatic (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If such exists, I'm not aware of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does exist; I've seen it done. Maybe only bureaucrats can do it. Ah, found it: "Oversight." WP:RFO. –Fayenatic (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Oversighters"? Seriously, why aren't those people called Overseers?--Mike Selinker(talk) 22:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • rofl, that's just what wikipedia needs now - overseers : ) - jc37 00:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's better than this: "Hey, how come you didn't do that rollback task?" "Eh, just an oversight on my part."--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • lol. So to use it in a sentence: did Jimbo Wales oversee an oversight while yet overlooking an oversight in that oversight, and while sitting in a house overlooking the ocean? - jc37 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nice! Ah, there is WP:REVDEL as well, for any administrator. "Oversighting" is needed only for hiding edits even from admins. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Fayenatic, since the discussion about the RfA is here, I thought I'd drop this here rather than your talk page (we can move it there if you like, of course).

If you wouldn't mind, would you look at the discussion I had at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk (and on the talk page), and tell me what you think?

Also, with the various comments in mind, please consider expanding your answers to questions in your nom. You don't have to obviously, and you're doing quite well without, it's merely a suggestion : ) - jc3718:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've read and tried to digest it, but feeling a little Wiki-indigestion today! I didn't assimilate it all to come to an overall view of the nominee, but I didn't see anything that would horrify me in a fellow new admin.
I've added some expansions as well as answering the rest of DGG's questions, which took some time. I thought that some of my later answers filled out some of the earlier ones so I added cross-referencing, which may count for something. Still got two questions to go. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. I know from personal experience (twice : ) - that RfA can be a bit of a nail biting experience.
What I was thinking when I posted that was that I was in discussion with another RfA candidate and thought their answers were a bit "light" in some places. And when looking over your answers, I had to admit, yours were a bit light too in several places. but I'm honestly not sure about being a nominator, and yet asking you to clarify : )
So my post above was me trying to find a middle ground of sorts. Since both of you seem to be having a similar trouble. being long time experienced editors, but not sure how to convey what you know.
And by the way, imho, that's one of several positives of asking questions, the one answering actually has to take a moment and verbalise what's been floating in the miasmic liquid of their brain : )
Thanks for taking the time to flesh things out a bit. If you re-read the discussion I had with him, you might see some places where your answers may have seemed a bit light too : )
Hope this helps. - jc37 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether it would be unwise to post the following after the question about celeb fans having a COI:

Follow up question from self
Q13b So, ever been found out?
A: Yes, but that was a long time ago as a young editor... I held my hands up straight away. Honestly, I created the page when splitting content as part of a merger of two articles about the proverb, and at that time there were other examples of "Foo in popular culture" pages. I'm revealing this here in a spirit of openness.

I know that RFA is not a joke. Best to forget it? Or OK provided I don't append "and because it was mildly amusing"?– Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have to ask, then I think you already know the answer. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh... I guess for all these years I've been "looking forward" to it coming out at my RfA. Well, I hope you enjoyed it anyway. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had done that at the start, maybe. Now, I dunno. Could be seen as an allegory for RfA commenters : ) -jc37 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Had to think about that to get your meaning! I did not have any allegory in mind, and think it is buried too deep to worry about. I assessed the risk again and decided to disclose it soberly. – Fayenatic (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Million Dollar Quartet members[edit]

Category:Million Dollar Quartet members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on the Categories for discussionpage. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move made was not correct[edit]

I was never given a chance to respond to the Darwin category moves and it should have been moved to the Opposed nominations section. Darwin, NT is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a location, all the others are small and not really well known and Charles Darwin the strangely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Darwin. Bidgee (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw your opposition, but it was made on grounds that didn't hold up to scrutiny. You said there were no other places called Darwin, and others refuted that claim. Here is a list of other Darwin places. So since that claim didn't hold up, I felt there was no reason not to proceed. If you still think I did this incorrectly, the best thing to do is to nominate the categories for a rename back to the "Darwin" versions. Let see if others agree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I changed my mind. I'm putting the categories back and restoring the debate to the Opposed section. Sorry for the whipsawing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Mike, thanks again for nominating me at RfA. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How refreshingly humble. I hope you enjoy being an admin.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took me a while to get round to that CFD on Feb 3, but it was still waiting for me, so I closed it at last. I'll follow through with implementation tomorrow. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Befuddlians[edit]

I'm slowly looking at those that remain. I noticed that most of the regular closers have comments thus opting out of being able to close this series. So I may be the only regular left to do the closes. The ones that have been closed are where there was a clear consensus by the comments or a clear consensus where the opposed comments did not address the reasons for the proposed rename. As you may have noticed I was not around for a while and I have less time for this. But I will try to get to those. But it may only be one a day, maybe more. If someone else wants to try I'd be grateful. I still need to clean up the Vegas categories. Finding other issues besides the ones from the recent moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Truth. I definitely can't close any of them, because I am on record as being opposed to all such "Old X" categories. If you don't do it, I'm sure someone else will.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed you have called them 'egregious', which is about right. Oculi (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese maritime history[edit]

I believed you jumped the gun and did not give me a chance to reply. Your move has rendered this category useless to me, so I will no longer use it. The reply I was preparing that you did not give me a chance to post:

Well, I am not sure what the intention or purpose of "maritime history by country" is, geographic, national, state, etc., nor do I want to impose my own views, or second-guess it or make it so precise that it makes nonsense of what certain categories have been trying to collect. Certainly seems to be a sparse category - most major contributors to maritime history are missing here (Carthaginians, Arabs, Chinese, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, etc.) And I wouldn't be surprised if the poor choice of category title ("Maritime history of country x") is a contributory factor to that sparseness, as delineating the boundaries of maritime history by country is much more difficult than "land history" (which has more compact and firmer geographic boundaries). Countries are a piece of land, defined by legal jurisdiction, but navigation is much more fluid, the sea belongs to no one. So setting the boundaries of where one country's maritime history begins, and another country's maritime history ends, is fraught with difficulty. The "of X" makes an already difficult situation even more difficult, because "of X" also implies a specific geographic location, and brings in a secondary meaning (i.e. the history of a geographical area) which tramples on national turfs. The adjectives "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch" is less ambiguous, much more flexible and less likely to be quarreled over. Again, I point out the problems and ambiguities that would be created by renaming "Italian explorers" as "Explorers of Italy", or renaming "Soviet space exploration" as "Space exploration of the Soviet Union".

Whomever came up with this "maritime history of X" convention (and it is not much of a convention, as it seems pretty recent and pretty limited to very few countries), apparently did not think this through. I suspect they went with a simplistic analogy, assuming that maritime history is a subset of the history of a country. But it is not so. Maritime history is the history of the sea - or more precisely, seafaring, a technological endeavor, like space exploration. "Portuguese maritime history" means the contributions of the Portuguese to seafaring. "Maritime history of Portugal" brings up connotations of seafaring in Portuguese waters. Once that geographic connotation comes in - which is not the intention of these "of X" categories, but nonetheless arises by the way the category is worded - the problems begin. Cape Bojador is Moroccan territorial waters, and seafaring in those waters, even if undertaken by citizens of other nations, is part of the maritime history of Morocco. "Portuguese maritime history" cuts through the mess in a jiffy, without ambiguities or treading on toes.

"Of X" can also indicates the modern state, which brings up massive problems with states that no longer exist. Just playing with cartography, I've seen the headache of categorizing contributions as "of Aragon" or "of Spain", or so many aspects of Venetian navigation, which could be put under "Italian", but not "of Italy". And then there are the multitude of seafarers under foreign flags - Alvise Cadamosto, John Cabot, Ferdinand Magellan, etc. - where flexibility is needed. "Portuguese", "Spanish", "Italian", "Dutch", are nationalities rather than states, thereby simplifying matters enormously.

Categories should say what they mean. And I meant this category to mean the Portuguese contributions to maritime history, which is expansive, and not the history of seafaring in Portugal, which is much narrower.

To those who suggest narrowness has its virtue, or that I shouldn't be putting so many things in this category if they are not narrowly "of Portugal", I disagree. Everything in this category is intimately related to Portuguese maritime history. I constructed this category for a purpose - to collect the articles relevant to Portuguese maritime history. Not those relevant to Portugal or the government or Portugal, or its discoveries or territories or empire. But those relevant to maritime history. These articles were hitherto partitioned into a myriad of scattered, disconnected categories, often misclassified in an attempt to put them together with others (e.g. cartographers and financiers classified as "explorers", etc.) If someone hopes to get a grip or understanding of Portuguese contribution to maritime history, he need not look through a gazillion different scattered categories for associated topics, but can come here. It is useful to have it all in one place.

That was my intent. I didn't have any interest in subsuming it as part of the history of a country, but rather as as part of the history of seafaring. Much as the "Soviet space program" is primarily part of the history of space exploration, rather than the history of the Soviet Union. The "Portuguese maritime history" label was carefully chosen as the one which I could easiest default to, one that could be threaded through all these articles and hold them together, with the least complications or challenges. But I didn't anticipate the category itself would be challenged.

I don't want to see this category amputated to fit in the procrustean bed of a confusing and poorly-thought "convention", I want to be able to continue writing articles on Portuguese maritime history trusting there is a category in which I know it will fit, with articles I know are related, and not have to rack my brains in indecision of how or where to classify it and go back to dismembering the topic, scattering articles across a myriad of categories. If inconsistency in category titles is impossible to tolerate, then

  • I request that maritime history by country follow the example of space exploration by country, and use "Soviet", "Chinese", etc. rather than "of the Soviet Union", "of China".
  • If a general revamp cannot be agreed to, then I respectfully request that this category be removed from "Maritime history by country", and left by itself as "Portuguese maritime history" under a general "maritime history" heading.
  • If leaving the title as is is deemed too close, then I request that I be permitted to rename this category to something more specific that is sufficiently different, so as not to be confused with this category tree.
  • If these proposals are rejected and the category is moved, then I will have to move several articles out of it, and I will probably cease adding articles to this category. This is not facetiousness, but simply that "of X" will be too narrow, ambiguous and awkward to be able to hold what I hoped it would and should hold, and a category constrained in this manner no longer serves the purpose I constructed it for. Portuguese maritime history articles will return, like the articles on Italian, Spanish and Dutch maritime history, to the scattered immensity of Wikipedia.

Please consider this.

P.S. - (added now) Is this even procedurally correct? I haven't been in category discussions before, but controversial RMs have at least a seven days of open discussion. I know this was classified for "speedy", but IIRC correctly, if it was opposed (and I opposed it) then it is taken off the speedy list and moves to some sort of longer discussion. Or am I mistaken here? Walrasiad (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not always. A nomination that is opposed on grounds that do not hold up can be speedily processed. I believe enough time was given for people to respond, and every one of the responses told you that your argument, while well stated, did not hold up. There are 20 other country categories in Category:Maritime history by country, and every one of them has the same naming pattern and intent. If this category is to be included in that parent category, it needs to have the same format and intent. And it can. Whether that means some of the contents have to move is another matter. Now, you do have another choice, as several commenters told you: You can nominate all those categories for renaming. That might well pass. But you are arguing against a simple rule: C2C. A rename bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names. It is a rule that is clear, and whose mandate on this category is clear to everyone but you. I think you can edit around that, but if you can't, please feel free to bring it up on WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two days does not sound like long enough (and was not long enough) for a reply to what I think is a misclassification. While retitling all the categories would be something I might be interested in pursuing, as the first paragraph of my reply above notes, I don't want to second-guess other people's intent with those other categories. The gist of my point is that this particular category is classified wrongly, that it was not part of "Maritime History by Country" (the latter having a different meaning, and the articles in the category not fitting it) and so the gist of my proposal was to have it removed from that category. It cannot be subjected to C2C reasoning within a category to which it does not belong. I proposed to simply remove the category from it or be given a chance to retitle it. It seems to me your action was premature, applying a criteria of titling consistency to a category which was misclassified to begin with, when it should have been moved to a discussion to decide in which category this properly belongs. Walrasiad (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it can. Let's say I decide to create Category:The Rolling Stones musicians. And in it I not only put the members of the Stones, but everybody who ever played on a Stones album. Not only would C2C apply, forcing it to be renamed Category:The Rolling Stones members and placed into Category:Musicians by band, but the strictures of that parent would apply, forcing the purging of all the people who were not members of the Rolling Stones. This is exactly what happened here. You created a category that came very close to duplicating the purpose and format of a category that made sense in Category:Maritime history by country, and are now disputing that it doesn't belong there, and should get some sort of free pass from the structural intent of categories with that name. Everyone tried to tell you that, but you don't want to listen. Which is your choice, of course. My suggestion is that you nominate Category:Maritime history of Portugal for renaming toCategory:Portuguese maritime history and see what happens. Maybe I will be proven wrong, and there will be a clamoring of support for this strange outlier.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an outlier, it is misclassified. I constructed this category using a deliberate criteria which does not fit here. The proper comparison would be someone constructing a category for "Los Angeles Lakers" and it being misclassified under the general category of "Water bodies of California" and renamed "Water bodies of Los Angeles" for consistency. Now, maybe enough people know about basketball to realize that was a mistake. But maritime history is a specialist topic, in which an error of misclassification may not be apparent or understood to those not engaged in it. This needed time to explain, weigh and discuss, time which was not given. Walrasiad(talk) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I asked a question about the procedure Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Opposed category moves, and from one reply, it seems to me I was correct in assuming it premature and that it should have been moved to longer discussion. If that is true, than I am truly puzzled. In your very reply to my talk page[1] you said "you made your points quite well", not frivolous. It seems to me that a procedural mistake was made here. If that is incorrect, perhaps you can explain your interpretation of the criteria there?
If, contrarily, you were simply trying to be nice, and do believe my opposition "frivolous", then I'd like you to explain your judgment further. As the primary writer of the bulk of those articles, and the very creator of this category, I don't think explaining the criteria and purpose in creating this category ought be regarded as "frivolous". To be clear, I am not claiming ownership of the category but, if I may be so presumptuous, as arguably the only editor actively working on Portuguese maritime history on Wiki, the primary person whose editing will be affected and upon whom the future maintenance of this category primarily depends, I don't believe my opinion should be so cavalierly swept aside. Walrasiad (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are upset, and I think you need to go bring this somewhere else. I've given you my rationales, and you clearly don't want to hear them. I encourage you to nominate this category either on CfD or DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for action here, I am asking for clarification of your rationale, why you took the action you did. From what you have said thus far, it seems to me you made a mistake and side-stepped the established procedure. But if I am in error on the procedure, or in error about my estimation of your judgment, then I'd like to know. Mistakes I can understand - and I am willing to undertake the effort to correct or work around mistakes. But if it is not a mistake, if the procedure is this or your judgment is that my arguments were frivolous, then my course of action will be different. Having been railroaded once, I am not keen on being railroaded again. Please don't palm me off. This is of very high importance to me. I would rather things were clear from the outset to avoid misunderstandings or cropping up again in the subsequent courses of action. Walrasiad (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to butt in (well, actually I do)—but from what Mike has said on this page andhere, he's not saying he made a mistake. He made the decision to proceed with processing because it clearly met the criteria for speedy renaming and there was broad agreement on the speedy discussion page on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am confused. For Mike went on my talk page and articulated one criteria "I saw that though you made your points quite well, no one else supported those objections", and then claimed on another talk page "Looking at the overall point, there are times when an objection is made on completely unfounded ground, and this was one of those times, in my opinion." It seems to me like he is articulating two different judgments and two different basis of criteria, one based on counting noses, another on the nature of the objection. Did he judge it frivolous or didn't he? If he is counting noses, then it should have moved to a longer discussion, as far as I can tell. Walrasiad (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are asking for is for me to give you a rationale that you want to hear. I have given you the actual rationale several times: Your category fits into a specific spot the hierarchy, and thus should have a specific name, and a specific intent, and no other intent. You have made it clear that you disagree, but what you have not made clear is that you hear what I'm telling you. I hope you can understand that I would rather not have to say it a fifth time. You have lots of options: nominate on CfD, request a review on DRV, try to make a new category and see what happens with that, or let it drop. The option I would prefer you let go is the one where you continually ask me to explain myself, because I believe I can do no more of that without repeating myself.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear you come out and say outright that you thought my opposition was frivolous, that my arguments were unreasonable. I want to hear you say that the reply I was preparing (posted for your information above) was so ridiculous that it didn't deserve a hearing. I want to hear you say you were just being patronizing when you put those comments on my user talk page that misled me to believe you thought my arguments had any value. I also want you to state clearly, for now and the future, that the opposition of a category-creator, prime contributors to the articles contained therein, and/or the principal maintainers of a category, should carry no special weight or consideration in deciding whether or not a speedy move should proceed to longer discussion.
In short, I want clarification of your honest opinion.
As for subsequent courses of action, that depends. As mentioned, this is highly important to me. But if my arguments are so frivolous they did not even persude you to just to lengthen the discussion, they have an ice cube's chance in hell succeeding in any other forum. I cannot, of course, work with the current category - I will have to cease contributing to it, and it will probably whither and die. Which is a pity. But I also don't want to take a course of action which will give the appearance of being WP:POINTY. Walrasiad (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't use words like "frivolous" to describe the actions of well-intentioned editors who approach things rationally. And I did not intend then, nor do I intend now, to be patronizing. Instead, I'll say that I think it fell under WP:SNOW. There were a bunch of editors who believed that it should go one way, and one editor (the category creator--and yes, that does matter) who felt it should go another. It was my read that continued discussion would produce no change in the results, and that it clearly fell under the 2-day window. I do not wish to discourage you in your editing, and hope you won't consider this change of word order in a category name to be a deciding factor in whether you do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW implies unanimity (which it wasn't, I objected, and objected very strongly) or implies unreasonable objections (which returns to your judgment of my arguments, which I would like to honestly hear.) As for "no change in the results", I laid out several alternative courses of action - renaming all the MH articles, removing it from this tree or allowing me to rename the category altogether - to salvage the category from being destroyed. These alternative courses were yet to be replied or commented on and merited further discussion. Some of us have jobs and can't reply as quickly within 48 hours. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that it was "snowing". You either made a mistake and moved prematurely, or you judged my arguments frivolous, which is something I need to hear from you honestly, without qualifactions or hemming or hawing.
A deciding factor? If you haven't gathered yet from my comments there or here, it is most certainly and utterly decisive. Walrasiad (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this discussion just keeps going and going is really quite frustrating for me to read, because this sort of interaction with users has been relatively common on my talk page. User:Walrasiad, instead of continuing to question Mike, why don't you resolve to take up one of his suggestions? We could take this toWP:DRV. We could nominate the category for naming back to your preferred name. You could re-create the category you prefer and see what happens. I don't think going over the same thing over and over and over with a user trying to pry out answers you are looking for is productive, and it doesn't really go anywhere in the end. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should really do what Good Olfactory suggests, because we've reached the end of my willingness to be badgered about it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeking to badger anyone, but to obtain straight answers. I was shocked and surprised to find a speedy move undertaken when I had expected there to be a longer time for discussion. I suspected there was a procedural mistake, but not having sufficient experience on how speedy moves in categories work, I came here to inquire about the procedure and the criteria used to close this. I can't say I was given straight answers, but found contradictions, evasiveness and attempts to palm me off to another forum, or baiting me to initiate procedures frankly seem dubious and pointy to me. That is not a good start. My last encounter with a premature move turned out to be a very unhappy, even hellish, experience to all involved. I learned then it was wise to have clear and straight answers from the admin from the outset, to avoid having his initial judgment brought up again to scrutiny and questioned repeatedly later in the process. I want to ensure that does not happen again, and that whatever subsequent course of action follows will be smooth and without damage. At this stage, my intention is to avoid submitting an ANI and getting other admins involved, but rather to try to work with Mike to clarify this move, so we can set this aside, and help sort the options available to me to try to retrieve the situation.

@ Mike, I know the job of an admin is thankless and trying, and I thank you for your patience thus far. I hope you understand that I am not upset at the move (well, I am, but that's not why I am here). I am here because I was taken aback and remain baffled at the prematurity and short-circuiting of what I thought the process was. And I would like that clarified sincerely. Walrasiad (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are doing a very impressive job of making it both thankless and trying. I have given you five options: relist it, recreate it, DRV it, nominate its entire tree, or let it stand. I don't care which you pick. You've added a sixth option, which is to ANI it. Do that if you feel it's merited. I have now explained this to you six times,so for god's sake, stop acting like I haven't given you an answer. I have nothing else to say on this subject, so please stop posting here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I don't intend to apply for your job. For I might have to deal with people like me, who are tenacious in seeking satisfaction and can't be chased away with a broom. I am not asking you for advice - not at this point, anyway. I am asking you for a satisfactory explanation. For all your replies, I am simply not able to shake off the perception that you simply disregarded procedure in this matter. Of course, I don't want to accuse without first being clear about what the procedure was, and what your explanation is. I had hoped it would be satisfactory. But as far as I can gather from your replies, your explanation is at variance with the procedure, which implies you made a mistake. Which is forgiveable. But not owning up to it, and hoping I'll just slink away is something else. I don't mind losing a case fair and square. But I do mind being cheated. I am hoping here that you can prove that I wasn't. Walrasiad (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved admin[edit]

Per my comments at CfD, I think that Mike acted wrongly in proceeding with the move in the face of an objection. This was a speedy process, in which any sustained objection is supposed to trigger a full discussion, so WP:SNOW was inapplicable; SNOW relates to a full discussion, and this was not a discussion.

That said, Mike has now acted quite properly in reversing the speedy rename, and listing the category at CFD under the status quo ante. I hope that Walrasiad no longer feels cheated, and can accept that even a conscientious admin like Mike will err occasionally. What matters is that Mike has now remedied that error.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an undertone in BHG's thoughtful comment here that I feel I must address. BHG thinks I made a mistake, and that's her prerogative. However, I reversed my decision not because I thought I had erred, but because of relentless badgering from Walrasiad. I felt reversal and relisting was a more positive way to deal with that problem, rather than requesting an arbitration or block or other negative remedy.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry that I misunderstood, Mike. I accept that you don't think you erred, but I still believe that you did. Whichever of us is right, it seems to me that this point needs clarification, and that an RFC (on the procedural issue, not an RFC/U) would help all admins better understand their role when such a situation arises again. Would you have any objection to me opening one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. I know this hasn't been a picnic for you. I much appreciate the opportunity to resume full discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am done tolerating your passive-aggressive behavior. Do not post on my page again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Fooians[edit]

A discussion is taking place on my talk page as to where we should draw a limit on what "old fooian categories we keep and which we convert to people educatated at foo school. You may like to participate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"[edit]

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieveconsensus. Please consider contributinghere andhere.Moonraker (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime[edit]

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

Added what I think may be a solution (for now), to be followed up with a bigger nom later. -jc37 23:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Now maybe someone will close it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way. I just re-read everything (Both the nom and the talk page "discussion" above, and even BHG's RfC.
I know that this should go without saying (but I will anyway : ) - I hope you know that at XfD when I comment in a discussion, I do that regardless of how I may respect the nominator. I know the easy path in this case would have been to "vote" rename (or close as a rename, which was what I was considering before I decided to comment). But, I sincerely try to do what I feel is best according to WP policies/guidelines/etc. And sometimes my perspective of that runs counter to the opinions of others who I may trust and respect.
Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that I'm empathetic, and (what I'm sure you understand) my oppose wasn't "personal", though I can understand that it may have had the unfortunate effect of raking you a bit back over some recently tread coals (thankless and trying). And for that, you have my apologies. - jc37 22:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the kind of person who hopes people will agree with me solely to spare my feelings.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, but when it happens, all to often, the other person doesn't give a thought to that. I do, and often. I may not always be a paragon of tact (pinches myself - nod, still human) but I try : ) jc37 08:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the note.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Foo) Alumni (of Foo)[edit]

Mike, I just spotted your comment here that you "intend to begin an "alumni"/"Alumni of" discussion once we've dealt with all the "Old (X)" categories to whatever extent we're going to deal with those".

Good idea. The Old Fooian cleanup has helped co-ordinate these categories, but we still have too many national formats: Foo alumni, alumni of Foo, PEA, and maybe a few remaining "Former pupils". More consistency would be great.

If all the current CfDs are passed, the remaining Old Fooians will be about 25 in the UK, plus a few in Pakistan and South Africa. Maybe 35 in total. I'll wait and see what happens to the current batch of nominations before deciding which Old Fooians (if any) I nominate next ... but I have been surprised to see some noms open for so long. There are currently 11 noms eligible for closure, going back to the Doscos on March 2. I hope someone closes them soon, because it's not healthy for discussions to re`main open so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Cjc13 decided to throw a grenade in the room by accusing Vegaswikian of bias. I'll check with him and see if that changed his approach. As to the current set of unnominated categories, maybe it'd be smart to handle the New Zealand, Pakistan, and South Africa ones before going further with the UK ones, till the current ones are closed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cjc13 doesn't seem to have anything to add to the discussions other than grenades of various forms. Mostly of the policy-means-the-opposite-of what-it-says variety of smoke grenade.
    I thought that the jibes at VegasW were very unfair, because they were not raised in a way where they could be tested. A sort of hit-and-run character bias-charge.
    I'll leave any further OF noms, whether UK or SA or elsewhere, until this lot is closed.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like User:Jc37 has taken up the gauntlet. You can start again, I believe.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno about "gauntlet", but assertions of anyone's character or bias, without either backing the bias assertion up with evidence or the assertion that it affected others with evidence, just seems very bad to me, and I think it violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Wikiquette, in the worst way.
    All that aside, my experience with User:Vegaswikian (and it goes back years) is that - when it comes to closures - any claims of bias are just flat wrong.
    However, I didn't feel that putting all that in a close was appropriate since it was and would be (imo) mostly off topic.
    As for Old whatevers, I am utterly neutral (don't care), and just close the discussions based upon the discussions themselves and of course wider policy/guidelines of Wikipedia, as we are to do. -jc37 06:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly didn't mean that you would be affected by Cjc13's claim, only that (as shown below) it affected Vegaswikian and thus whoever closed the rest might be smart to brace for a similar claim. I would do it myself, except that I am biased and thus am commenting rather than closing.--Mike Selinker(talk) 14:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I was talking about how ridiculous I felt/feel it is to claim Vegaswikian is biased when closing.
    Though indeed, good luck claiming I am biased in these closures.
    If someone wants to ask me to clarify my closure, they are welcome to drop a note on my talk page (as someone recently did).
    If they think my response/clarification isn't correct, then, following that talk page discussion, as Kbdank used to say: "WP:DRV is thattaway". - jc37 20:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, as shown above and below, those words seem to be invisible to some users.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, there are days where I wonder if that is just part of the par for the course. (See bullet 5 under memorable comments on my talk page.) - jc37 06:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Old (X)" CfDs[edit]

Yep, I try be to a wise administrator, not always succeeding. Since there was the accusation of bias in my closes by Cjc13, I decided that it would be best to step back for a while and let someone else from the outside deal with those closes. I do believe that all of the ones I did were correct based on the facts of the discussion. Also, the fact that none of these were taken to deletion review indicates that either no one wants to do that, or that the closes would be upheld there since the actions were based on consensus. So rather then create issues, I felt it was best to back off for a while and let someone else deal with these. I suppose that if those new closes are for a rename, which is what I believe the consensus is (with one possible exception that I have not read closely), I may again resume closing them so that they don't backup. So for now, we will need to wait. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I just wanted to know whether the claim of bias stopped your actions. I'll see if I can find someone else.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying.
    I think it's a pity to see this sort of thing happen. Not many editors do CfD closes, but those who do them rarely find themselves at DRV, so they must be getting something right.
    If someone disagrees with a close, there is a simple remedy: discuss it with the closer, and then either drop it or take to DRV. But sniping is nasty, because it poisons the atmosphere without a chance of resolution. For myself, if I get sniped at like that, I open a own DRV on myself rather than leave the charge hanging there. YMMV.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Alternative future, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffy the Vampire Slayer (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) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation and restoration?[edit]

What are you doing? There was no consensus on that category discussion, and you just flagrantly ignored the decent part of that discussion. You didn't even read the discussion. If you had, you would have noticed there were a number of editors that explicitly said not to do what you've done. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's what there was no consensus on: you emptying categories out of turn and declaring that no one else was smart enough to have any say over the categories you owned. I went through all the arguments, considered everything that was said (including from you), and decided based on those. Certainly, your unilateral actions were never going to hold the day; at minimum, an admin who sees a category emptied before it is brought up on CfD must return it to its previous form. I gave you a lot more than that. You may bring my close up on DRV if you like.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. What you're accusing me of is exactly what you've just done.--RichardMcCoy(talk) 17:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did exactly what you agreed with in the discussion. You said, "Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced". I also deletedCategory:Art conservation as you requested. You got everything you wanted. So what wrong?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you're really being crazy here and insulting. You think you've done what you've said, but you've not. Here's a simple example, you've deleted the category for conservation-restoration from Save Outdoor Sculpture and put Art conservation and restoration. Save Outdoor Sculpture is not strictly about art. Read the discussions and please consider others opinions. Undo what you're doing. You're not following it at all!--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're just having a bad day, Mike Selinker. Here's hoping you cool off and think about what you're doing.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to make it into a bigger mess and then walk away? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my language above, since Richard felt insulted. However, if anyone wants to see my original text, check my edit history.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it wasn't that I "felt insulted," it's that you typed insults.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You glutton[edit]

Ever since Portuguese maritime history came to its whimpering end, I have suspected you are actually a glutton for punishment or some sort of masochist. Now I know you are. So have a cheeseburger, you glutton. Good Ol’factory (talk)22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the whole "Alumni of..."/"...alumni" thing[edit]

This was originally formed several years ago when setting up and standardising the university categories and a division opened up (and was generally maintained by CFD) between countries on this, mainly with the British, Irish, Sri Lankan and Hong Kong categories going one way and most other countries going the other. Part of the divide may be different preferences for title order between countries but a particular problem is that "Institution Name alumni" can produce awkward sounding results when the institution name is punctuated, especially when it's part of a larger institution. There are quite a number of such cases in the UK, particularly Oxbridge colleges where the name is "Foo College, Oxbridge", and also some of the University of London colleges where the current branding is "Foo, University of London". Ireland has similar cases such as "Trinity College, Dublin". (Sri Lanka and Hong Kong don't appear to have these forms so I'm not sure why precisely the categories went the way it did when other Commonwealth countries didn't.) As these were amongst the earliest with categories the form was naturally copied by others.

At a random glance of other English speaking countries with lots of such categories, Canada, Israel,New Zeland, Pakistan and South Africa don't have any such institution names to cope with, whilst Australia only has a couple. The US categories are harder to glance browse (although I remember you once produced a monster of a multi-hyphenated name). Indiahas several within the collegiate Universities of Bangalore,Calcutta, Delhi,Madras and Mumbai. Without looking too indepth, it's my impression that such problematic institution names are also rare in at least the English names for many other countries' universities.

Any general discussion in this area will need to take in the universities as well but it will need to give explicit thought to institutions with such names that don't easily fit. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

The Categorisation Barnstar
For the all-around work you do and have done related to categories. Your work over the last several years has clearly helped better organise what was at one time quite a mess, greatly clarifying and uniting the structure, thereby enhancing navigation for our readers. An altogether thankless task which should not continue to be so. So from me (at least) - Thank you : )-jc37 20:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested[edit]

Your opinion is requested here,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country, for a discussion that is similar to one you participated in last December. Thanks! --Karl.brown(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD comment[edit]

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

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

works by period[edit]

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

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

  • I have never figured out how to relist in one go. I will eventually. Meanwhile, I've closed all the March discussions I can. Do the rest?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    lol no worries. just struck me funny (partially cause I should have known there was "more to come" : )
    And I'll give them all a quick run through to see, but I thought I looked them over last night and closed what I could. (I was waiting on a few old fooians partially because I wanted to check over the group noms (more time than i wanted to spend last night), and also because the discussions seem to never end : )
    Also, I've updated my comments in a few, please feel free to check them out if there is anything worth responding to.- jc37 02:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you do, I'm sure BrownHairedGirl will give us some more to think about.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it and closed it. I hope others have better luck than I did in trying to figure the multiple school one out (could be I'm just confused : ) - jc37 03:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. There's a couple more on April 1 and 2 if you want them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (quick update) Well, for the 1st, I'd rather not close the redirect/dab one for various reasons. And for the 2nd, Category:People educated at Christ's Hospital seems ambiguous per the hatnotes at Christ's Hospital. So I'll wait for more discussion there. I'll be working my way through closing other CfDs in a moment. - jc3704:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy[edit]

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

April 2012[edit]

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

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

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


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

CfDs[edit]

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

(Talk page stalker) You are absolutely entitled to your views. However, I agree with Mike and believe that you could have made your point across with more WP:AGF. That being said, the general purpose of the rename is to make the category follow the general naming conventions that apply to other Pakistan-related "Foo alumni" categories. I have given my perspective on the issue at the CfD. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (User page stalker here to give a complement) Btw, you have an interesting user page :)Mar4d (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of commercial failures in software for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

School alumni categories[edit]

Hi Mike

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

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

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

Category:Works about race[edit]

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

category deletion[edit]

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

Agreed, but there are ways to get at least part of the story. If a category is moved, the first edit summary in the page history generally records its previous name. You can also often use "What links here" to find the discussion that resulted in a move. Given either of these, you can then use "What links here" on the OLD name to find any discussions about that one.
The only way to be able to see the full history that you're asking for is to become an Admin. Short of that, feel free to ask me or another friendly admin to look things up for you if there is something in particular that you are interested in. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's what seems odd - we go out of our way to preserve article history, but we toss category history and make it hard to find. I suppose this just a limitation in the wikipedia software? --KarlB (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean by "Wikipedia software". The platform is really MediaWiki, but the particular configuration deployed is that for Wikipedia. Wikipedia's setup is rather simplified, compared to many MediaWiki installations, to cope with the server load for the high page view volume. Many commonplace MediaWiki features aren't installed or available here.
In particular, Wikipedia's culture is historically rather anti-category. Most editors don't understand how they work and misuse them, on the assumption that they're a more ontologically-defining system than they're really capable of. This leads to tensions with projects such as DBpedia, which are smart about categories but hitting the limits of MediaWiki's model, and WP itself where categories named after major individuals (Trevithick and Botticelli for starters) are regularly deleted for some half-baked understanding of "policy".
MediaWiki doesn't track history for category membership. It can be made to, but it's a fairly major extension change (it has to stretch the DB data model a bit too). Few people need or bother with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loughor railway viaduct[edit]

The line over it opened to public traffic in 1852

Brunel died in 1859

Why do you claim it was built in 1860?

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

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

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

Categories by time period[edit]

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

Rather than muddy the waters at the CFD, which is messy enough already, let me float this with you. What should be the top category for each thing? (a) Some categories by period hold sub-cats by year/ decade/ century (/millennium) as well as locally-appropriate eras; see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 29#Category:History of Brazil by time. (b) Some by date hold year--millemmium as well as "era" (or "period"). (c) Some byyear hold decade/ century (/millennium).
IMHO, (c) is confusing and should be changed to either (a) or (b). I'm thinking of raising either a test case or a WT:CFD discussion. So I wasn't going to harmonise all eras/periods before that. – FayenaticL (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in. I'm convinced that most by time categories should be by century/and/or year for several reason. As a general rule you do not need anything below century other then by year categories when they can be populated. The parent categories would include by millennium when justified. When you have something that can logically be grouped, as and example WWII, that could be added as a subcategory of the 20th century if needed. I think that both of you have some resistance to including century categories in an all inclusive by year one, but does doing this really hurt anything? No matter which direction this goes, we need to remember that navigation to nearby years should by template. I think in most cases using by era or period can be confusing unless there is support for a specif start and end date. Otherwise they are problematic. Oh, at one time I dropped a note on one of the year wikiprojects and asked about this. As I recall there was no response. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up some of the consequent cleanup for categories "by era". You probably already know about the optional parameter in {{Cfm}} for the section name in group nominations, but I thought I'd drop a friendly reminder as some recent noms have missed it (e.g. [2]) -- perhaps TW doesn't handle it? – FayenaticLondon (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cfm full|day=26|month=May|year=2012|1=|target=Swiss mathematicians}} ,
but to link to the group discussion it should be
{{Cfm full|day=26|month=May|year=2012|1=Categories by era|target=Swiss mathematicians}}
– Fayenatic London (talk)12:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New CfD[edit]

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation. KarlB (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notice[edit]

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

Um wow. While I guess this isn't the first time others have said nice things about me (or rather what things I do), and (hopefully) won't be the last, and several have already been so kind in the nom, but wow. That was something to read. It was exceedingly nice of you to say. I guess when those whom one so respects says such things... Well anyway, check out doczilla's talk page where I noted such about you. - jc37 11:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans. Good luck with the request.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges by decade[edit]

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

  • Thanks. I'm going to nominate them straightaway.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an unintended issue with some category creations [3]--summary refers to a cheerleaders discussion rather than ... thought I would tell you rather than having the problem get larger if you are about to create more. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some things...[edit]

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

Category:Boats by designer[edit]

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

Sincere Request[edit]

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-assertedbold 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 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bachman & Cummings albums[edit]

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

Emirates[edit]

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

  • Nothing. It's a habit that I eliminate those annoying red squares when I see them, and apparently I just reflexively saved it without any other changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm confused. when I look at the before and after, the spelling is the same. (and what red squares?
incidentally in case of misunderstanding, I was thinking that wikipedia did something odd (malfunctioned) in marking identical words as changed somehow. - jc37 04:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's all me. Sometimes text copied from other places creates an untransferrable red square that mucks with category conversion. I habitually remove those. There's nothing to worry about here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I can't see the red square. Guessing it's something technical.
Sorry about bothering you with this, I was just rubbing my eyes and trying to figure out how Wikipedia broke : ) -jc37 07:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just me is broke.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(checks pockets) me too. Guess I'll have to settle for being rich in joy, poor in money : ) -jc37 07:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback![edit]

Hello, Mike Selinker. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 09:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Category:Lethbridge Suger Kings alumni[edit]

Should Category:Lethbridge Suger Kings alumni really renamed to Category:Lethbridge Sugar Kings? AndCategory:Granby Bisons alumni to Category:Granby Bisons? (The former is now at WP:CFD/W)[4]Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–010:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

DRV[edit]

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

Category:Songs about trucks[edit]

Category:Songs about trucks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)23:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo[edit]

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

Category discussion:English independent ministers of the Rebellion period[edit]

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

What's going on? You didn't reply to this message.StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just missed it. You can nominate the others on Speedy using the C2C criterion. Link to the original discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought of that - but it looks like there was consensus there. Can't you just perform the move?StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was, but they were never tagged. Tag them for a Speedy nomination and it will likely sail through.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Islamophobia[edit]

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

What was the hurry? Has islamophobia ceased to exist? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can read my close if you'd like. That's likely all I will say on this page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read it, I have to say I had no intentions to "challenge" you. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coolness.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider?[edit]

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

  • No. You've got a couple of delete votes, a keep, and an "at worst listify." Seems like a classic "no consensus" to me. Feel free to DRV it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator you should know it's not a vote. What we have is the nomination to delete, 2 outright deletes, one "at worst listify" and one contributor who seems to be totally confused. I also note your amending comment about pruning - as there is not one song that is actually about "poverty" in the category, are you suggesting I should empty the category?. Finally, I note from categories you have created that you are in favour of songs by theme. Please reconsider so I don't have to study how to appeal! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here, let me save you the studying: go to WP:DRV and enter the category there. So if you're upset, DRV exists as a place where you can get a fair hearing. The pruning comment should be treated conservatively; I'm going to assume a broad definition of poverty here. As for whether I am "in favor of" songs by theme, I've created thousands of categories, most through CFD. As far as I know, the only songs by theme categories I've created were Category:Songs about automobiles and Category:Songs about trucks, which were created to subcategorize Category:Songs about transport after the category was renamed. You can find anything you want in the categories I've ruled on, so if you want to make a bias claim, at least consider all the evidence.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention of taking your "pruning" comment literally. I shall consider the whole matter later when I have more time to consider. You may find User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme illuminating where I started listing what the lyrics were about in the category (until I suffered from a poverty of pointlessness, thinking it was already a dead category!). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it wasn't deleted I am not sure a deletion review would be appropriate. As it is no consensus there is no reason why it can't be listed again. I assume you have no objections to that? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

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

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

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

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

"Soundtrack" refers to the sound recording part of a motion picture. Originally it was physically part of a print of the film, read optically by the projector - I assume these things are all digital nowadays. This is not a motion picture, although one was made of the same show. If we don't want to preserve this distinction, I suppose I have no leg to stand on. BUT why can't we just add a "Cast Album" designation to the list - or even use "unknown" or leave it blank? This is an encyclopedia, not a database system, and it seems ridiculous to insert inaccurate or approximate information (as we do sometimes in databases) just in order to "fill a field". If we want to group soundtrack albums and cast albums, then why can't we change "soundtrack" to something like "soundtrack and cast albums"?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very reasonable position. It sounds like we should bring it up onWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. "Cast" would seem a welcome option, but I can't unilaterally make that decision (nor would I know how to code it). For now, I'm going to make it the unassailable "Studio album" with a Longtype of "Original cast album," since it needs one of the field's parameters for it to stop reporting an error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Would it help to change similar articles (those specifically about particular recordings of particular stage shows) to match, pending a difinitive decision? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Let's see what others have to say first. I have started the discussionhere. Feel free to weigh in.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Category:MetroStars[edit]

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

Category backlinks[edit]

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

ANI Discussion[edit]

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

Deletion review for Category:Actresses[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season[edit]

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

DYK nomination of Crescent City Blues[edit]

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

DYK for Crescent City Blues[edit]

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

Category:Starship albums[edit]

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

Category:Alice Academy characters[edit]

Category:Alice Academy characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classical and jazz radio people[edit]

Thanks for closing this CfD at long last. Although you closed as "rename to ...people", you actually entered a rename to "...presenters" on the Working page. ([5]) I'll remedy this by adding the People cats as head categories, and looking for any non-presenters; the end result will be less work than sub-catting as you had suggested. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There should be a barnstar for this[edit]

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

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

Vancouver Whitecaps categories[edit]

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

CFD: GAA Clubs in County Londonderry[edit]

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

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

Re: WP:PERM/A[edit]

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

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

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

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

BHG Talkback[edit]

Hello, Mike Selinker. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo stubs template[edit]

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

Kuwaiti actresses CfD[edit]

Hi Mike

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

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

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

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

Category:Million Dollar Quartet members[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

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

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

Cfd close[edit]

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

Political Prisoners[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I think it's probably obvious that I used Pussy Riot as an example, rather than a litmus test. You are misinterpreting what I said about Amnesty, though. I meant that categories with sourcing in the titles, such as Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience, may be the way to go. The political prisoners category require Wikipedians to agree on inclusion criteria, which I think is not very likely based on the discussion, but the Amnesty only requires Amnesty to declare it. That should give you enough information on my position to decide whether to put it onWP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is a difference between democracies and authoritarian states, and we decide which is which by following the reliable sources. Had I known earlier that you do not think there is a difference between democracy and authoritarianism, I would have spent so much time trying to reach agreement with you; our world views are clearly irreconcilable. So long. Homunculus (duihua) 06:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not make my talk page a rehash of the CfD. If someone wants to take it up for redress, that option is available.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Homunclus says "you do not think there is a difference between democracy and authoritarianism". I didn't write that, and I don't believe that.
I just don't believe that we live in a simple black-and-white world, with good guys on one side and bad guys on the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition[edit]

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

Arbcom elections[edit]

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

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

You are obviously well respected by most who have interacted with you. Any possibility? - jc3700:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. But thanks for thinking of me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, nod, kinda guessed, but I wanted to ask : ) - jc37 04:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, I've nominated you for some free merchandise. I hope you win : ) - jc3704:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Executions in China[edit]

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

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

Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country)[edit]

Hi Mike. I have starteda CfD discussion about the subcategories of Category:Bilateral relations of Georgia (country). Currently some of them use the "(country)" disambiguator (such as Category:Georgia (country)–Israel relations) but some of them don't (such as Category:Georgia–Poland relations). I hope the debate can lead to some standardization one way or the other and since you created one of these subcategories, I'm hoping you can chime in. Cheers, Pichpich(talk) 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh precedent vs Irish precedent.[edit]

Thank you for writing closing comments on the Welsh case. Had you done the same for the Irish case, this nomination might not have been necessary. Anyway, you wrote, "But a look at the articles shows that Welsh Government most assuredly does not equal Government of Wales, and similarly for Scotland.". That's all very well. But the same might also be written of the Irish case. Yet the decision in that case was upmerge. I'd be obliged if you would explain for me the differing rationale. Why is one a keep and the other an upmerge? The devolved administratin argument is pure hokum and you know it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are referring tothis nomination, I didn't close that particular discussion. Different admins will reach different conclusions from different discussions. I closed this one based solely on the merits of the discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I thought that you were involved in both. But the second nomination cited the first as a precedent. So the decision for the second would have had to have come to a view on the precendent setting power of the first in order to arrive at a conclusion. No? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub cats[edit]

Ok I saw there were several stub cat CfDs still open that you just took care of.

I didn't close them previously because (honestly) I couldn't remember how they worked, so I just passed them over : )

So if they are nommed, do we delete both the cat and then the template? Or do we just disable the cat from the template?

My vague recollection is that they are not dissimilar to userboxes populating user cats.

Am I remembering correctly? If not, please edumacate me : ) - jc37 09:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My best answer is "play it by ear." Sometimes the category is changed, sometimes it's deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But if the cat is to be deleted, do we also delete the stub template? I thought that that was "yes" (as part of merging the process here) but I want to make sure : ) - jc37 09:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. I generally don't unless there's a strong rationale for it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    k, thank you : ) - jc37 09:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting former categories[edit]

Hi Mike, re [6] I thought you might appreciate a reminder of WT:CFDW#Speedy processing issue: remember the hyphen issue, please!

I also left a question there which perhaps no-one has noticed. – Fayenatic London 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atmosphere video albums[edit]

Category:Atmosphere video albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me?[edit]

Hi Mike,

If possible could you shoot me an email either through the wiki or at jalexander@wikimedia.org. Nothing bad :)Jalexander--WMF 00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review ?[edit]

Hi Mike, Can you add your comments to Wikipedia:Help_desk#Deletion_review ? Thanks GrahamHardy(talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMA Invite[edit]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on Wikipedia better! In November 97 people made a total of 899 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you haven't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page.
Kevlar(talk) 20:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Category:Essayist navigational boxes[edit]

You speedily deleted Category:Essayist navigational boxes for being empty. If I understand WP:CSD#C1 correctly, the category should have been empty for four days for that criterion to apply, but I had created it earlier today viaArticles for creation. I have thus recreated it; it will probably be filled within a day or two. Huon (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology - Templates vs Navigation boxes[edit]

I note that you've been closing out several CfDs that move [...Template] to [...Navigation boxes] (e.g.[7]) However, if I understand this right they are still abbreviated with a "T" in category lists? (e.g.[8] ) So for consistency should this tabulation be changed to an "N"? And I note they are still called 'templates', e.g. Category:English writer navigational boxes. (It strikes me that there are a lot of wide-reaching CfD changes being proposed in a piece-meal manner at the moment, which must be placing a challenge on the quality of reviewing and on the admins to keep up.) Ephebi(talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugh. I forgot all about that abbreviation. I will watch for it in the future. Thanks for bringing it up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Gibraltar[edit]

I noticed you closedthis discussionas merge to Category:People from Gibraltar today. However, I closedthis discussion, started after that one, yesterday that (reverse) merged PfG to Category:Gibraltarian people. So I've modified the result of PawG to target Gp. FYI! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiwi Islander people[edit]

Hi; regardingthis close, in which Category:Tiwi Islander people was created—would you consider changing it to Category:Tiwi Islands people? For all other categories, we've had discussions in the past where we've concluded that although "XXX Islander" is a legitimate noun, it's not such a good adjective, so we've always defaulted to "XXX Islands people"—Category:Solomon Islands people, Category:British Virgin Islands people, for examples. Alternatively, I could start a new CFD to have the category renamed, but I thought I would ask first in case you were in agreement.Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Selinker/Archive10&oldid=1139201379"