User:BD2412/Archive 014
March 2014
DC Meetups in MarchHappy March! Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather. Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:
We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. — Harej (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC) TemplateAre you serious. Template the regulars. Done close a move discussion thats clearly valid nor should you ignore the evidence presented. Disgracefully poor.Blethering Scot 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Gaucho pants listed at Redirects for discussionAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaucho pants. Since you had some involvement with the Gaucho pants redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk ) 18:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposed move of Irish parliament (disambiguation) to Irish parliamentYou commented in this discussion but didn't vote. So, can I ask you if you understand the proposal? I'm thinking of closing this. As I see it now, it's a fairly innocuous proposal. And I don't see why it would require a lot of redirects to be fixed. Normally there would not (I assume) be very many links to a DAB page such as Irish parliament (disambiguation). If I'm wrong please let me know. It is puzzling that there is a redirect Irish parliament which goes to the pre-1801 parliament, while Irish parliament (disambiguation) is admitted to be ambiguous. I guess it's not up to me to make this arrangement sound logical. Thanks, Mew GullPlease see the message before yours on my talk page. It's been through Requested moves, and in the absence of a clear consensus, I was asked to move it (over a redirect, so it needed an admin) to IOC name, the default authority for the bird project in the absence of a consensus to do otherwise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Move review for
|
|
|
|
—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will add this to my list of projects to get to. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Two edit-a-thons coming up!
Hello there!
I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:
- This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
- On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.
We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.
Best,
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of
- Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
- You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a bookto source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
- We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. be bold!
- Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
- Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
- To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
{{
~~~~subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
- To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
{{
~~~~subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
- You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
Hoping for your cooperation!
Category:Songs written by Lisa (musician)
It is much easier, quicker and simpler to use
- I am not trying to rename the category, just to fix the disambiguation link on the page. bd2412 T 11:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then you wouldn't have made this edit here. Not a problem, it's sorted,--Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, the category probably should be changed, since it is clearly ambiguous. bd2412 T 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Too late now you have emptied the category, as I said, it is sorted. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, the category probably should be changed, since it is clearly ambiguous. bd2412 T 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then you wouldn't have made this edit here. Not a problem, it's sorted,--Richhoncho (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014 disambig contest
Thanks for the message - this is new to me - is there a link to this? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- This month's contest is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/May 2014 - fixes start counting as soon as the month rolls over. General contest information is at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the invite. I've been using Dab Solver, and I wondered if I need to sign in at the top right of the tool page. I tried a couple of times, but didn't get anywhere. Is that one way the points are counted? - Gorthian (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You should not need to sign in to dabsolver for the points to be counted, since the tool kicks you back into Wikipedia to make the save. However, points are only awarded for certain fixes (see 11:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the invite. I've been using Dab Solver, and I wondered if I need to sign in at the top right of the tool page. I tried a couple of times, but didn't get anywhere. Is that one way the points are counted? - Gorthian (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever considered including the File and/or Portal namespaces in the contests? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that would be great, but I am not the originator of the contest, nor do I have any control over how points are awarded. bd2412 T 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that! I posted to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Additional namespaces for contest? instead. Thanks for setting me straight! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) --
A beer for you!
lets get drunk Jamestownwind (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
Meet up with us
Happy May!
There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:
- On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
- Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
- You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.
Come one, come all!
Best,
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Conchita
Could you please add the photo that I have placed in the ITN nomination for Conchita Wurst. She is now mentioned at the ITN section but no photo has been added.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, busy at the moment. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- All I was asking for was a edit that takes about 1 minute to complete and is in line with the decided inclusion of Wurst at ITN. You must be really busy.. But ok.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Why make the reader click through twice?
Is there any purpose in this? The disambig page has only two items—obviously someone's not going to click through just to get back to the page they came from, so if they're clicking through they're doing so to get to that other item, so why not just redirect directly to covenant (religion), as the hat was already doing? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that there was only one other meaning - in fact, I'm quite surprised to hear that! bd2412 T 00:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there could very well be other "contracts with God" that nobody's gotten around to adding to the disambig page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought that there would be books, films, songs, etc. bd2412 T 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like someone dug something up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought that there would be books, films, songs, etc. bd2412 T 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there could very well be other "contracts with God" that nobody's gotten around to adding to the disambig page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations
How on earth did you delink the University of the Arts, Prestina? I took one look and burst into tears. Brilliant effort.
- It was actually embarrassingly easy once I started looking into it. 12:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Centijimbos
Well, I didn't even know what a centijimbo was until today, but it appears I have 5.8 of them. Finally, a Wikipedia statistical category where I'm ahead of you! They are putting on their parkas in Hell today. Never mind, you just didn't format the template correctly. :-( R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Half of my edits are from fixing links identified on subpages that you create, though! bd2412 T 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Photographer's Barnstar | |
For the image of your own belly-button link. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I had actually recently finished revising the Lint (material) article when I noticed the accumulation in my belly button one afternoon, and I got unreasonably excited about the opportunity to photograph it. bd2412 T 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
SYSTAT (statistics)
Pseudoscientists
Is it just that section which is only for panel members, or the whole page? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would rather not have to deal with this at all. bd2412 T 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Having looked at the subpage where y'all are discussing the close: can I suggest that you start an RfC to determine whether there is consensus for the idea you've formed? Perhaps it will gain support from the community, but the fact is that it's not something that was supported via a consensus of participants in the AfD. Closing it the way you have in mind would be ultra vires. My particular concern is that a good number of the people currently in the category are identified in reliable sources as "pseudoscientists" without a more specific notion as to what "kind" of pseudoscience they're into -- and I can't see why we would then refrain from categorising them as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is within our remit to delete the category completely if it can not be conformed to WP:BLP, so it must also be possible to employ a solution that comes close to accomplishing that without going so far as deleting it. I don't see how a reliable source can usefully identify a subject as a "pseudoscientist" without saying what pseudoscientific beliefs that subject has. bd2412 T12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can I ask that you respond to the core of my post, which is that it would be desirable to hold an RfC to determine whether there is community support for your proposal? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone who wants to start an RfC can start an RfC, and it may yield further insight. However, I don't think that this is necessary for the determination that we have reached. bd2412 T 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look, and I don't see anything in the deletion policy or guides that authorises a close mandating that a category be unpopulated. I think an RfC would be necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- () 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look, and I don't see anything in the deletion policy or guides that authorises a close mandating that a category be unpopulated. I think an RfC would be necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone who wants to start an RfC can start an RfC, and it may yield further insight. However, I don't think that this is necessary for the determination that we have reached. bd2412 T 16:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can I ask that you respond to the core of my post, which is that it would be desirable to hold an RfC to determine whether there is community support for your proposal? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is within our remit to delete the category completely if it can not be conformed to
- Having looked at the subpage where y'all are discussing the close: can I suggest that you start an RfC to determine whether there is consensus for the idea you've formed? Perhaps it will gain support from the community, but the fact is that it's not something that was supported via a consensus of participants in the AfD. Closing it the way you have in mind would be ultra vires. My particular concern is that a good number of the people currently in the category are identified in reliable sources as "pseudoscientists" without a more specific notion as to what "kind" of pseudoscience they're into -- and I can't see why we would then refrain from categorising them as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Helen and Scott Nearing
Hi BD2412, Helen and Scott Nearing was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Helen and Scott Nearing. Given that, unilateral deletion didn't seem appropriate; an IP raised this concern at the RFD, and I think he or she was correct. Especially since it's effectively a different redirect, now that it has a different target, you can bring it up again there if you'd like. --BDD (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It may be useful to redirect somewhere, but it certainly can't point to Nearing as it is not a synonym for the term. We have an entire project dedicated to wiping out exactly these kinds of links. bd2412 T 03:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's an ambiguous search term, so it goes to a disambiguation page that includes the items that it could potentially cover. Is it really that problematic? --BDD (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's compound disambiguation, a bad habit to get into. By this theory, every married couple in history where both spouses are notable should have a redirect from their his-and-her name combination to the surname page or disambiguation page that matches their surname. George and Martha Washington, Robert and Kris Kardashian, Jane and Tony Smith, Robert and Elizabeth Dole, the list is lengthy, if not endless, and should not be ventured upon at all. bd2412 T 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's an ambiguous search term, so it goes to a disambiguation page that includes the items that it could potentially cover. Is it really that problematic? --BDD (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of
- You rock bd2412. Thanks for sending these out. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Bd2412, I was thinking about my last comment to you (about the benefits of large polls of less-informed voters vs. small polls of more-informed voters) combined with your proposal of re-opening the move discussion, and it made me think of an old RfC I participated in once. You may remember it:
- I am not against the idea, but I wonder how an RfC would be functionally different from a new move request? bd2412 T 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The main difference I think would be the neutral statement of explanation at the beginning and the understanding that the result would be binding. ~talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I kind of like the idea, but would want to see it very clearly delineated into sections (I find that discussions become chaotic where supporting comments, opposing comments, and evidence/discussion are all mixed together). I think the goal of such a process would also need to be clearly spelled out - to determine the best title for encyclopedic purposes, irrespective of both the recent discussion and previous discussions. bd2412 T 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. ~talk) 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Adjwilley, are you interested in putting together an RfC? Obviously I have a strong opinion on the issue, but as you were one of the admins who closed the last discussion, I don't think anyone could accuse you of having a nefarious motive in raising the question. There are a number of issues that I think need to be addressed here - how much weight to give to a subject's expressed preference as weighed against that subject's actions in contradiction of that preference; whether "high level" sources should be weighed more heavily in making a common name determination, and if so, how much more heavily; and if so, then what exactly should be counted as "high level sources" (respected newspapers? peer-reviewed scholarly publications? biographies, whether neutral or partisan)? There are a lot of matters to be settled here going forward. Cheers! bd2412 T17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BD2412, I wouldn't mind helping out a bit. And I think it would be helpful to get input from involved parties on both "sides" to make sure the wording in neutral. Also, my intent here is not to have it be a policy RfC...I understand that there are debates going on elsewhere over that, and in my opinion the questions of subject preference, weighting of sources, etc., would best be addressed in another venue where there is less at stake with fewer involved users who are emotionally invested in fate of a high profile article. ~talk) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are, however, policies at issue here. bd2412 T 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed there are, but I still think they should be determined separately from the move RfC. If the policy issues are sorted out first, that will make the move rfc easier with more clearly defined policies. If the move rfc comes first, we would have a small section listing relevant policies, where we would note that the policy about x and y is unclear on the matter. What we don't want in my opinion is people trying to change policy because they have strong feelings about an issue. (Imagine for instance people trying to change the BLP policy because they have a specific BLP in mind where they want more liberty to soapbox.) It's like trying to redefine what a foul is in the middle of a basketball game. ~talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed there are, but I still think they should be determined separately from the move RfC. If the policy issues are sorted out first, that will make the move rfc easier with more clearly defined policies. If the move rfc comes first, we would have a small section listing relevant policies, where we would note that the policy about x and y is unclear on the matter. What we don't want in my opinion is people trying to change policy because they have strong feelings about an issue. (Imagine for instance people trying to change the BLP policy because they have a specific BLP in mind where they want more liberty to soapbox.) It's like trying to redefine what a foul is in the middle of a basketball game. ~
- There are, however, policies at issue here. bd2412 T 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BD2412, I wouldn't mind helping out a bit. And I think it would be helpful to get input from involved parties on both "sides" to make sure the wording in neutral. Also, my intent here is not to have it be a policy RfC...I understand that there are debates going on elsewhere over that, and in my opinion the questions of subject preference, weighting of sources, etc., would best be addressed in another venue where there is less at stake with fewer involved users who are emotionally invested in fate of a high profile article. ~
- (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that any RfC would need to be worded as neutrally as possible. On a separate note, I've been arguing the P!nk case for quite a while, and I can tell you that the subject (birth name Alicia Moore) has consistently and unwaveringly used "P!nk" since the release of 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well that is certainly something I didn't know. Not that I don't know the subject, I have heard or seen her many times and have read stories about her. It can be the way ones mind works when reading. I have certainly seen the "P!nk" reference, but in my mind that was only recently. I always thought she was "Pink". I don't have a problem with either title, but I do know that based on some bots, CMD/DOS scripts that adding such non alphanumeric characters can be a problem. Or at least that's the way it used to be. I'm old and haven't kept up with new technology as much as I used to. heh-heh talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The technical aspects of it don't bother me - we have thousands of titles with exclamation points in them (e.g. Wham!, Stop! In the Name of Love, and most egregiously of all, Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!). To me there is some discrepancy where an inconsistently used "Rodham" is included while a consistently used "!" in "P!nk" is excluded. For the record I would include the "!" in "P!nk". bd2412 T 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's something else I didn't know. So if non alphanumeric are included, I don't see the problem of using P!nk. I can see that many don't want to put in an exclamation point in a name, because it requires a "Shift + 1" action, but it shouldn't matter if that's her stage name and has been consistently referred to as such. In my opinion. talk) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's something else I didn't know. So if non alphanumeric are included, I don't see the problem of using P!nk. I can see that many don't want to put in an exclamation point in a name, because it requires a "Shift + 1" action, but it shouldn't matter if that's her stage name and has been consistently referred to as such. In my opinion.
- The technical aspects of it don't bother me - we have thousands of titles with exclamation points in them (e.g. Wham!, Stop! In the Name of Love, and most egregiously of all, Adults!!!: Smart!!! Shithammered!!! And Excited by Nothing!!!!!!!). To me there is some discrepancy where an inconsistently used "Rodham" is included while a consistently used "!" in "P!nk" is excluded. For the record I would include the "!" in "P!nk". bd2412 T 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well that is certainly something I didn't know. Not that I don't know the subject, I have heard or seen her many times and have read stories about her. It can be the way ones mind works when reading. I have certainly seen the "P!nk" reference, but in my mind that was only recently. I always thought she was "Pink". I don't have a problem with either title, but I do know that based on some bots, CMD/DOS scripts that adding such non alphanumeric characters can be a problem. Or at least that's the way it used to be. I'm old and haven't kept up with new technology as much as I used to. heh-heh
- I certainly agree that any RfC would need to be worded as neutrally as possible. On a separate note, I've been arguing the P!nk case for quite a while, and I can tell you that the subject (birth name Alicia Moore) has consistently and unwaveringly used "P!nk" since the release of 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. ~
- I kind of like the idea, but would want to see it very clearly delineated into sections (I find that discussions become chaotic where supporting comments, opposing comments, and evidence/discussion are all mixed together). I think the goal of such a process would also need to be clearly spelled out - to determine the best title for encyclopedic purposes, irrespective of both the recent discussion and previous discussions. bd2412 T 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- The main difference I think would be the neutral statement of explanation at the beginning and the understanding that the result would be binding. ~
Barnstar for you!
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For implementing AWB for someone who knew not how. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
Pussy (second nomination)
I saw your entry on the nomination page for this particular entry and think parts of the article should be split and formed as a new article called Pussy (Slang) or something similar. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Split into what, though? Dick (slang) must be at such a title because there are prominent uses of the word as a given name or nickname, as a surname, and as a business name. I don't see anything at Pussy (disambiguation) that comes close to competing with the slang term for primacy. bd2412 T 00:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
EU
Hi BD. I'm not sure why the
- Agreed. My watchlist is full of edits which appear to have zero value. I think that mass changes like this could be OK if done in conjunction with other useful edits, and I recognise that some editors like high edit counts, but these changes en masse, on their own, it seems to be a good way of consuming other editors' time in return for negligible reader benefit. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- How else do we find out if there are pages that link to EU, but intend some meaning other than the primary meaning? I have combed through links to primary topic pages before, link Mouse, to find errant links intending another meaning, and it is far more time consuming than this. bd2412 T22:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is not relevant. We would find bad links by reading and understanding articles to see if there were any subtle mistakes in links. You did no such thing, because you were making thirty edits a minute, which is simply pressing a button lots of times, rather than applying any serious thought. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let me walk you through my thought process in deciding to undertake this task. Every day I check the list of most linked-to disambiguation pages. If a page with an unusually large number of links shows up, I check to see why - this usually happens because a redirect has been turned into a disambiguation page. In that case, I check to see if the disambiguation page is a FBI, are highly stable, with no likelihood of an errant link or a future change in status. This is not one of them, which makes it unstable. Also, please do not mistake the speed with which I work for rote button-pressing. I check every single link before I press a button to see if the fix is correct in context. I am able to do this by having multiple application windows open at the same time spread laterally across the screen, and by checking each window before making the save across all the windows. Cheers! bd2412 T00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let me walk you through my thought process in deciding to undertake this task. Every day I check the list of most linked-to disambiguation pages. If a page with an unusually large number of links shows up, I check to see why - this usually happens because a redirect has been turned into a disambiguation page. In that case, I check to see if the disambiguation page is a
- That is not relevant. We would find bad links by reading and understanding articles to see if there were any subtle mistakes in links. You did no such thing, because you were making thirty edits a minute, which is simply pressing a button lots of times, rather than applying any serious thought. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- How else do we find out if there are pages that link to
Category:Pseudoscientists
By creating the new category - but saying that nothing could be put in it until subcategories were created, but saying that everything must be removed from Category:Pseudoscientists immediately, you have effectively blown up all the work put into categorization before letting it be rebuilt from the rubble.
It is almost impossible to find out what used to be in a category, so slow, careful guidance is needed if you wish to not throw out years of categorization work. You did not do this in your closing decision
A sensible way would have been either to leave the category in place during the recategorization, or keep a list of pages to be categorized. Now? Information has been lost that will have to be ereconstructed. Please behave in a more sensible manner in future. I agree recategorization is reasonable, but there was no reason whatsoever to do it in a manner that basically deleted the work needed to find pages tat should be categorized into the new tree. Hell, they could have been auto-moved into the container category temporarily with a deadline to recategorize. That the most destructive abnd stupid option - to blow the category up and start over - was taken shows a severe lack of judgement.
I don't think there was any malice here, but you need to be far more careful in future. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- We never said that the category content had to be removed immediately. I would have thought that whoever was engaged in that process would have first created the necessary subcategories, then done the recategorization, and I don't imagine that this would have taken more than a few hours. I would also think that editors who were aware that this category was the subject of a dispute might keep their own record of which articles were in the category for exactly such a purpose. The closing panel only determined the consensus of the discussion, we did not implement that consensus. bd2412 T 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- So you don't accept there was a failure of judgment here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- What would you suggest constitutes "a failure of judgment"? The close reflects the desire of a substantial majority of participants on the discussion to impose a substantially restrictive change on the status quo. Anyone who disagrees with the determination of the closing panel is free to take the matter up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obtuse. The point was explained clearly enough by Adam, and it's unfortunate to see that you're not able to take it on board. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The community made the decision. All we (the closing panel members) did was to summarize it and institute a resolution that would implement the clear consensus for a change of the status quo. If you believe that the closing panel made an incorrect determination of consensus, your solution is to seek a review of that determination. If you think that the community itself was wrong, then your displeasure is misdirected. bd2412 T 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obtuse. The point was explained clearly enough by Adam, and it's unfortunate to see that you're not able to take it on board. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- What would you suggest constitutes "a failure of judgment"? The close reflects the desire of a substantial majority of participants on the discussion to impose a substantially restrictive change on the status quo. Anyone who disagrees with the determination of the closing panel is free to take the matter up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- So you don't accept there was a failure of judgment here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Closure of Category:Pseudoscientists CFD
Hi BD2412 and ThaddeusB and BOZ
Your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May_1#Category:Pseudoscientists appeared to offer a compromise between deletion and retention, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific_fooers suggests that it has merely pushed the problem down to lower levels of the category tree. It seems to be leading to the recategorisation of individuals from Category:Pseudoscientists if it is simply replaced on individual articles by Catefory:Pseudoinsert-your-own-branch-of-science
ists ... which is no progress.
So, I think it's time to reassess the close. Neither the
Have I missed something? Can you explain how you evaluated the policy arguments, and why you dismissed those advocating deletion?
Sorry to come back to you on this, but I think that the compromise isn't working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would not say that we "dismissed" those advocating deletion; there was no consensus to delete. WP:NOTAVOTE does not empower us to ignore the sentiment of the community where consensus is required to take an action. If that were the case, we wouldn't have discussions at all, we would have rule by administrator fiat - which I believe would ultimately lead to the collapse of the project. The subjectivity of the category is an element of the BLP and verifiability aspects that we discussed, but beyond that our role as encyclopedists requires us to report where a subject is described across reliable sources as an advocate of a pseudoscientific theory. The panel did not suggest the creation of any "Pseudoinsert-your-own-branch-of-science" categories, but categories based on the specific pseudoscientific theory described in reliable sources as being advocated by the subject. Modern-day phrenologists, for example, should be categorized as phrenologists, and the category of phrenologists is properly categorized as a pseudoscience. bd2412 T17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply.
- There are two points there. The first is that arguments should be weighed against policy, and weighted according to their foundation in policy. That's the bit of that analysis that seems to me to be missing.
- Naturally, we are required to report what the sources say about someone, and per WP:WEIGHTwe do so in proportion to the weight of the sources. A point repeatedly made in the discussion was that categories are binary (on-off) switch: 100% in or 0%, with no weighting possible, and that similar POV categs had been deleted for the same reason. Can you explain how you evaluated that argument against policy?
- Secondly, with in the terms of the decision you made, some editors appear to be interpreting it differently to how you describe. The way I undertsood your close was that if someone was a proponent of the pseudoscientific discipline of Foobargensarianism, then shoukd be ctaegorised in Category:Foobargensarianists. That's fine; it describes them by theory they themselves advocate, and readers can draw their own conclusions about what to make of the theory of Foobargensarianism.
- However, not all of those described as pseudoscientists appear to fall neatly into one of those particular theories, which is why there is a move to try to classify them as pseudo-somethings. I thought that the whole point of the of the your close was to get away from direct labelling any of these people as a pseudo-something? The problem could be resolved if your close had said that articles could go in a subcat ... but as worded, it appears to be being read as a requirement. Instead of saying "must be recategorized to remove this category and replace it with a subcategory" ... you could say "must be recategorized to remove this category. It may be be replaced with a subcategory". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that if there is no specific subcategory of pseudscientific theory advocacy into which the article can properly be categorized, then the "Pseudoscientists" categorization was erroneous in the first instance. There are similarly lots of people who are widely thought of as idiots, but we have no Category:Idiots, nor subcategories for Category:Idiot politicians or Category:Stupid reality show personalities. As we noted in the close, our determination addressed only Category:Pseudoscientists, and the particular arrangement of subcategories was only advice, not a mandate drawn from the discussion. bd2412 T 19:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: if it comes up, I have moved the panel's discussion notes to Category talk:Advocates of pseudoscience/Move discussion notes. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Washington, DC meetups in June
Greetings!
Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:
- On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
- Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
- The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
- Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
- Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.
Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?
Best,
(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014 disambig contest
Hmmm, not a clue if I am ending exceptionally high. But ending 10th respectively 5th (assuming that no strange things happen) is very satisfactory. Funny to see that I have not even 12% of your recorded edits overall.
Do you have any records of prior months? The Banner talk 11:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- We have a Hall of Fame that displays the top four winners from prior months. bd2412 T 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- LOL, I do not even come close to those numbers. The Banner talk 17:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Janell for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janell 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 notice from the top of the article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)