User talk:Oculi/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

You clearly have much more experience in category discussions than I, but the template display seems to encourage the nominator to include an explanation with the template: "{{subst:cfr2|Diasporas|Emigrations and emigrants|text='''Rename'''. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}

Furthermore, when I was editing the renaming template it displayed this text: "<!-- End of Cfr message, feel free to edit beyond this point. -->" Accordingly, I added there my reasons for the proposed rename, which you have deleted. It seems to me that the template itself requests the nom to add some reasoning just where I did it. Sharktopus^talk 02:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The template links to the discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_8#Category:Diasporas. At the discussion the rationale is given. It doesn't need to be posted in the text of the category; only the template is placed there. It looks like now everything is squared away properly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does User:Lafe Smith remind you of anybody? (No, not PW this time.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This sort of diff does bring an editor to mind. (Who should never have been banned IMO, although cfd has been more tranquil in his absence.)

talk

) 11:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm torn. To block the account as block evasion, or to turn a blind eye in order to right a past wrong? It's dilemmas like this that drives one to eating fishsticks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Turn a blind eye and eschew the fishsticks.

talk

) 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If I get blamed for suspecting and taking no action, I'm blaming you. You can then blame the fishsticks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I forget the details (no reason was given for banning, there was no consensus, just a unilateral action) but the evidence to me seems circumstantial (unlike PW who was after all banned after an extensive process and is unmistakable). And the fishsticks concur. I myself shall treat LS as a completely new user and will make all attempts to refrain from pointing out any similarities, even if he turns out to be a vegetarian who regards articles as 'navigational hubs'.

talk

) 10:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at

talk

) 15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my big mouth doomed the situation. Or maybe it was suspected independently. If I remember correctly, the initial block of Otto/Cow of Pain was something that was done by way of ArbCom fiat, with no reasons given. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was independent: [1] -

talk

) 16:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Occuli, I'd really like your input (either on my talk page, or) on the deletion of the eponymous record label categories I've established [2]. I've created artists/albums categories for most cats subject to this deletion. I've also added the founders of the labels in question similar to Category:Apple Records.

When I browse Wikipedia, (esp. for a record label) I tend to use categories. I was somewhat amazed when another user added Category:Arts & Crafts albums to the article I created Say Us. I had no idea of the category even though I try to be diligent upon the categories used. Argolin (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed explaination. It's a case of hindsight...yes, I'll try to have things more lined up in the future. I really didn't think it would be a problem. I thought I was just adding some more to what was already there. Now in my world (LOL), it makes sense to have one category tied to the article (instead of 2: artists, albums). They are different branches of the category tree. No one has actually addressed linking these two cat's to the Category:Canadian music tree. If you have time maybe look Category:Canadian record labels. Thanks again, your help is appreciated.

See my question in this discussion. Your proposal sounds good, I'm just not sure if we should do it if these people were only raised in the religion. My question is not meant as a slap-down--it's legitimately phrased as a "question" and I'm wondering what you think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll see how the discussion develops.

talk

) 00:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why we should always link the parent article from the category page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Too true. I don't know why people don't go the extra inch on that.

talk

) 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Occuli, I think the link to Philip Jamison's page has been broken. I saw you added a new category and thought I would ask you if you know how to fix it. I have added a lot of information on this artist most recently. Would you mind taking a look and see whats up. Thank you!Thisandthem (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Which link is misbehaving?

talk

) 10:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's working now. Thanks for taking a look and updating the page! Thisandthem (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is always agreeable to solve a problem without doing anything ...

talk

) 13:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any PW history of editing rabbi categories? I ask b/c of User:BobJones11, which has me wondering. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[3] suggests not, and my 'observe' pages show nothing. However ...

talk

) 01:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know you don't need to do this [4] - there's a bot that fixes these within a day or so.Imgaril (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – the screen one gets on the completion of a move is not very clear about what bots do.

talk

) 19:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is likely a violation of

) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I had thought as much.

talk

) 08:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see here Thanks.—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect -- the onus is clearly on the person adding the information to add appropriate references. This is especially true with lists -- per

) 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few of the ones you remove in your summary fashion are easily linked to an existing article (eg

talk

) 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Inasmuch as you know that this article has many redlinked names that lack independent refs reflecting that the people are notable, please take this as a reflection that the rule -- which does not allow adding such names to such lists in the first place, will be enforced. I'll leave word to that effect on the talk page as well. If you wish to create articles or add appropriate refs, feel free to do so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I repeat - if you were to add tags and wait a few weeks rather than deleting summarily it would be more courteous and less disruptive. I am asking you to add tags, not delete. In a few weeks, if nothing happens, by all means delete. Certainly there is an onus upon you to check whether a red-link can be turned blue with a minimal effort (rather than ludicrously deleting a BT and VC as non-notable - I think you will find a VC of London University is notable per se).

talk

) 07:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of questionable entries has been raised on the talkpage since 2007. And editors of that page have seenmy edit summaries since May 4 that have been pointed to that guideline for some time now, and the necessity for either a wp article on each entry or appropriate RS refs.

Furthermore, our policy -- as I pointed out to you -- does not allow red-linked entries that lack appropriate refs to be addedin the first place. That list is full of unverified "information", in direct disregard to

WP:LISTPEOPLE

.

Where the people listed are living people, the error of your suggested approach of "leaving it as is for a few weeks more" is even further compounded. See

WP:BLPREMOVE

.

It is not in the interest of the Project to have unverified information of this sort for further weeks -- quite the contrary. I've left word on the list talkpage, as well as a link to the redlink-replete list as it stands now, which editors can look at even after the article has its red-linked, zero reference entries deleted.

And as to whether a red-linked, zero-ref entry that claims to be a VC is notable -- clearly, if you are reading the wp rules that I am pointing you to, you know that more than a bare assertion is needed ... you need either a wp article, or appropriate RS refs reflecting notability.

Feel free to either: a) write the requisite articles, or add the requisite refs; or b) lets move this discussion to the

WP:LISTPEOPLE talkpage and BLPN noticeboard, where others can opine on whether we should, as you suggest, let this redlink, zero-ref replete list stay in its current form for weeks more. I think that would be contrary to policy, and good sense. If you disagree, lets ask others to weigh in. Best.--Epeefleche (talk

) 08:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Link

Hi Oculi,

I noted you and others removed "Photography companies" from my Vincent Dunker submission because he was a photographer, not a company. Actually, he owned and operated a company that manufactured cameras and that is what he is known for, not being a photographer, although he was a good one. His company was VE-JA-DE Products, the name being derived from his initials, V.J.D. VE-JA-DE Products has been added to the list of companies on the wikipedia "Photography companies" page which why I had listed that category. I have tried to add the wikipedia category "List of photographic makers" to my submission, but it did not take properly and is in red. Perhaps you could do that for me and also add his name or company name, whatever is appropriate, to the lower sub-section of the above page "Former producers of cameras and/or photographic lenses and filters."

Thanks,

Rodger DigiCamHistory.Com RodgerCarter 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodgerCarter (talk • contribs)

• Dunker was not himself a company, and neither was he a list, so the additions you are trying to make are incorrect. He was the owner/founder of a photographic company but we don't have categories for these; at least I can't find any. I have added "VE-JA-DE Products, owned and founded by Vincent Joseph Dunker" to
  Oculi (talk
  ) 11:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Images of J. Williams (singer)

Category:Images of J. Williams (singer), which you created, has been nominated for 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm still not all the way back to my former level of editing -- especially when it comes to participating in CFD discussions -- but I did just leave a rather extensive comment in support of keeping the nominated category. I hope you'll reconsider your !vote in light of my remarks. Best regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I see you have made an eloquent defence. Is the nationality of the composer a defining characteristic of the composition? I would say not, myself. (The same does go for 'works' ... if only people would refrain from this incessant creation of dubious structures.) I am of course delighted that you are back - I had noticed the occasional edit here and there.
  talk
  ) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the subcategories of Category:Crime victims by nationality are up for renaming again. Given that you participated in the previous discussion, you may be interested in participating in this on, too. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for help with referencing List of castles in Italy! I'd been working on that list too, but as Italian is not one of my languages, it's been slow going. Keep up the great work! --Elonka 18:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that you are following up on TfTs contributions. I noticed {{Cite 1904 Gettysburg Battlefield map}} along the way and could not figure out how this is used and if it is really needed. How many references will be based on the map? Any opinions? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea. I looked at it a couple of days ago and also at

Oculi (talk

) 00:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A little trick

You can display a bit more Related changes data like in this example. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm nominating User:Fayenatic london for adminship. Your opinion on the subject would be welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words in support of

L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk)

18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

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 achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I added an extra category at this group CfD, without noticing that you had already !voted. You may want to review your !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked how many still to go?

Answer: lots. See User:Moonraker/OF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lots, indeed. There are many "common" names there I have never seen before.

Oculi (talk

) 11:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation categories

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

Your comments were much appreciated. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome - and I see that you are now free to edit all but one or 2 pages.

Oculi (talk

) 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.141 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the point you made here, and accept that I may be in error. We learn all the time. I left a thought which you may wish to elaborate on or reply to. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, If you have time, I'd love to know what you think about the proposed Re-names for Category:Nuclear accidents. It's turned into a rather complex discussion which I'm sure would benefit from your participation. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like somebody might be trying to get you in trouble? See: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.34.64.243] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How bizarre - thanks.

Oculi (talk

) 09:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin needed

Undo move requested. This move seems to me to be controversial and unsupported by anything in the article. (An admin seems to be required to undo this.)

) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

He is Craig Gower on Italian wiki:

Oculi (talk

) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That does look odd to me too. I don't have time at this moment to do the due dilligence, but for now, I'll tentatively support your assertion. I hope some admin addresses this. Otherwise, I will when next I'm around. - jc37 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted the move. If re-moved, I suggest starting an

WP:RM on the page's talk page as normal. - jc37

15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That editor's other edits look OK so I'm not quite sure where that move came from.

Oculi (talk

) 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Community of interest

Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I have already commented.

Oculi (talk

) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice

As a late-comer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, you may not have seen the notice of move to close at the talk page there. Take a look and see if you want to support or oppose one of more summaries. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please revisit this discussion. The nominator's rationale has been thoroughly debunked with a large amount of clear proof, but you are still on record as supporting it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this "clear proof" business. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I remain sceptical.

Oculi (talk

) 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Skinsmoke

I have noticed the recent batches of categories created by this user. In my opinion, most of them are abominable monstrosities, but I'm not sure what can be done apart from nominating the categories for deletion/upmerging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes ... one would rather hope that people would stop and reflect when their creations end up at cfd, rather than churning out more.

Oculi (talk

) 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I do. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fancy tackling

Oculi (talk

) 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all giving me the impression that Wales is a far more happenin' place than I ever suspected. Look at all that outdoor recreation! No, on further inspection—just beaches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_9#Outdoor_recreation_in_Wales_subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What magic is this? No Twinkle, no AWB yet instant listings? You could add

Oculi (talk

) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(Deletion noms are faster than renames or merges—I just cut and paste everything.) I made an effort to add some stuff to Category:Outdoor recreation in Wales and Category:Outdoor recreation in the United Kingdom via Category:Outdoor recreation. Are they viable? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you have instead added some plausible contents. Isn't this overlapping with Sport in Wales? I fear we will soon have Golf in Gwynnedd etc.

Oculi (talk

) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it does to a large extent I suppose, if we count hunting and such as a sport (which I am always loath to do, but ...). I don't think there's anything there that couldn't be called a sport. (Gardening?) I'll revert these changes and add them—right now at least it's not an established scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello; in January 2012 you participated in

since the discussion was closed on 3 February 2012, but no editor has undertaken the task.
This message is not intended to suggest that doing this work is your job or that there is an expectation that you will do it. This identical message is being given to all participants in the discussion and is simply a notification of this fact and a reminder that if the contents of the category are not converted into a list, the category may be deleted without that list being created. Thank you, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) is up for featured list review at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)/archive1. As a contributor, I thought you should know. Regards. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_22#Category:Chicago.2C_Illinois. Since you were involved in the previous discussion about Los Angeles categories, you may want to weigh in on this similar discussion about Chicago categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I've been mucking around at CFD again for the past week. I'm starting to feel like we should perhaps give serious consideration to requiring people to pass a sort of "CFD Driver's Test" before they're allowed to nominate categories for deletion/renaming, or to cast a "vote" in those discussions. The sheer obtuseness -- almost willful stupidity -- of some of the comments is really discouraging.

On the "brighter side" (did I really say that??), check this out. Do these words seem familiar?: "unnecessary eponymous category" Regards, Cgingold (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

PS - Didn't you used to spell your user name with two "C"s? :) Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be 'occuli' but after a while I realised that my recollection of Latin was awry (and there's

Oculi (talk

) 14:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Navigational hub ... that was it. And welcome back, of course.

Oculi (talk

) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe we're talking about one and the same individual, Oculi. Long since banned under his original user name -- though I am pretty certain that he subsequently reappeared for a time under another guise (which eludes me). Something tells me that he was "discovered" and also banned under that name, which would account for taking a new name. Meanwhile... I am at this very moment in the midst of a bit of unpleasantness with another old nemesis (who somehow managed to pass scrutiny for adminship, to my astonishment). Check this out when you have a chance: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_9#African-American_child_actors (toward the end of the discussion). Cgingold (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

,
I'm spending more time around categories and CfD so I thought I'd take some time to meet other Editors who participate there in order to better understand the way that forum works. I found each Wikipedia discussion sections have a dynamic all their own! I guess my wish is the opposite of that of Cgingold (above) in that I wish more Editors participated in CfD as in many cases, there isn't a clear majority to arrive at a consensus. Any way, I've been working lately in categorizing Male actors--apparently it's a recent invention--so maybe we will cross paths in future.
Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Loginnigol (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I'm just throwing this out there—was Pastorwayne ever into categorizing burials? It seems to me that he was, but I may be way off here. Anyway, what do you think of this? Creation of categories started pretty early. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think there was an EstherLOis PW-clone who was keen on burials. I do find an Ohio connection with this latest user name. I had some PW spy pages somewhere ...

Oculi (talk

) 00:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Or one can google and find this. QED.

Oculi (talk

) 01:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're good. Well, I guess I know what needs to be done. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to the Murder of Ross Parker and for your contribution to the proposed move of Parker the composer. Without wishing to influence your position, I'd like to point out that your argument there doesn't fully address the issue being discussed. You state that both the murder and the composer are notable, and while this is a good point to make, there are actually relatively few people questioning this. The discussion amongst the majority of editors concerns the relative notability of the two. Some are arguing the composer is more notable than the murder, and some might take the opposite view. However, the consensus so far seems to be that there really isn't a great deal of difference and therefore neither is the primary topic. I'm presuming you fall into the later camp based on your vote, though your text doesn't make it 100% clear as to your exact reasoning for the oppose and therefore you might like to tweak it slightly.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So, would you like to help me on restoring them, or we should wait for a broader consensus?--Mishae (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping a passing admin would take some action as the work involved is considerable. I could use AWB which is quick. It's the deleter who needs consensus, not the creator. (All he needed to do was change the categories to redirects and a bot would have moved everything; but even so that is not the correct procedure.) It's late here so I'll see if I have time tomorrow.

Oculi (talk

) 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No need. Luckily he only did it to categories of moths in 2009 and 2010 which were almost full, the rest contained only couple of species (since they were in the early stages of being made by the user Not With). So, I would suggest you to watch his contributions for me though, while I will try to restore them. Besides, luckily, he left alone the 2006 and 2012.--Mishae (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There were also some beetles cats. There might be a case for upmerging the small 1800s categories to 'Insects described in ..' (but then I have no idea myself whether they are potentially large).

Oculi (talk

) 09:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the moth categories are large enough, both 1992, 2000 and 2006 carry as many as 200+ moths, that's enough for one whole page out of over 500 species being described in those years alone. Its different for World War II era, or precisely the period between 1930's to 1949. Because during those times there was maximum of 100 species described (in total). But after 1950, we see a huge increase in entomology enthusiasm. I know much about beetles categories, but Category:Beetles described in 2006 is the main category which have close to 100 species, and will probably increase. Either way, you should agree (and so the deleter as well), that the Animals category becomes very claustrophobic and difficult to navigate through. Yes, it carries the alphabet, but even with that in order to find a specific species (especially if a user look for moths) is still difficult. By the way, I forgot to thank you personally for your help, its a pleasure to meet someone experienced and new (never knew of you until this incident) at the same time.--Mishae (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, roughly 60% of the new 'animals' per annum seem to be moths. It would be quite easy to make a bot request to go through all the 'new animals' categories and put the articles in a subcat determined by the taxobox, eg Phylum could be used or Classis. Insecta could then be subdivided into Lepidoptera (by the bot). Nearly all the moths contain the phrase 'is a moth' which a bot could spot. It's a very tedious job by hand, even with AWB.

Oculi (talk

) 10:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing scientific name redirects

I noticed your Category:Redirects to beetles and Category:Redirects to moths. I fully support diffusing animal redirects into more precise taxonomic categories. Some the the redirect categorization templates for scientific names have now been set up to support a taxonomic parameter. For example, {{R from scientific name}} and {{R from alternative scientific name}} accepts a parameter "|plant" that puts plant redirects into the appropriate subcategory (e.g. Category:Redirects from scientific names of plants‎. Although I don't have much experience coding templates (nor do I have the permissions to edit protected templates), I'd like to see parameter based subcategorization extended to all the scientific name redirect categorization templates, and expanded to include parameters for groups of organisms besides plants. What would you think about having a "|beetle" or "|moth" parameter in {{R to monotypic taxon}} that would place the redirect in the appropriate category (either Category:Redirects to beetles, or perhaps Category:Redirects to monotypic beetle taxa, which could itself be a subcategory of Redirects to beetles)? Plantdrew (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I set these up purely so I could make edits like this one with AWB. I started off doing this but it was going to take forever. (Redirects ought really to be in all the categories that a full article would be in.) I rather expected to be rebuked for some aspect of this but have heard nothing so far other than your supportive comment. I would possibly go further and specify whatever level 'Biarmosuchians' is. (I know nothing about moths other than being able to tell one from a butterfly.) I have searches such as this set up which finds articles which are in both 'animals described in' and 'moths' so I can than move them to 'moths described in', but it missed all the redirects (as they are not in any subcat of moths). So, yes, I would fully support your idea of further parameters (a lot of animal redirects are also missing the 'described in' tag). I think a bot could go to and fro between the redirect and the target filling in much of the detail but this would need discussion amongst experts and consensus (and is beyond AWB). Finally, the coding of templates is a mystery to me. Let me know if you start a discussion somewhere and I will opine.

Oculi (talk

) 19:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Having closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Ice hockey people from Detroit, and implemented the closure, I started to get worried about the size of Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario - currently almost at 1,200. A currently open discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Category:Ice hockey people from Markham, Ontario, proposes upmerging more articles there. Being that you participated in one or both of these discussions, you may be interested in a related discussion at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

may have smoked some sleeping socks from their slumber, hmmmm.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall forbear from

WP:AGF alike. Let's discuss the issue on its merits instead. --Orange Mike | Talk

01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out the obvious, more like.

Oculi (talk

) 08:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Spider cats

Please can you explain edits like[5]. DexDor (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Michael, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kelso. 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) 15:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they need to be manually deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect György Udvardy. Since you had some involvement with the György Udvardy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The article

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

) 00:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)