User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 14

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

February 2008

Aldfrith and the golden age

Angus, I've been working on Awadewit's points on the FAC for Aldfrith, and there's one point I wonder if you could help on. She's asked for an additional sentence of two on the golden age, in the paragraph in the Reign section. I think this is reasonable but I don't really have any sources that focus on this aspect of Northumbrian history. Do you have something you could use to add a little more detail? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the right source! No hurry, I think, but if it's going to take you more than about a week, let me know and I'll dig something out of the library. Mike Christie (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just addressed a minor issue raised by Awadewit at FAC. I think the only remaining question she has is about the Golden Age; she was curious if there is any scholarly speculation as to why the Golden Age started in Aldfrith's reign. Is there anything to say in that direction? I think that's the last issue; I left a note at FAC asking whether there were other remaining concerns. Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a note to FAC saying there's nothing evident, and we'll see if Awadewit is willing to change to support pending you finding something. Mike Christie (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

Angus, I know you're an admin and I figured you'd be watching, but since you're involved in the discussions I thought I'd ask another admin. I left a note at User talk:LaraLove with a request for advice. It's not just Northumbria; check his contribs and you'll see he's reverted several other changes to the map. If you can suggest the right next step I can just drop a note telling Lara I don't need the advice any more. Seems like reverting is just going to get into an edit war. Mike Christie (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith FAC

Sorry, got busy at work and at home and had no time for FAC. I'm heading over there now and will get started on qp10qp's notes. At first glance I think there were a couple I'm going to have to ask you for help on, but I'll deal with whatever I can. Mike Christie (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit less than half of them, but I'm afraid the rest are likely to need your knowledge. I will fix the map when I see what it is that qp wants; I can certainly add Austerfield but it sounds like he was looking for something else--perhaps a more detailed map of the Irish territories. Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the Deacon's note; I'd like your take on some of his points. Some I can deal with, such as removing "appears" from the comment about Adomnan and Aldfrith being friends. Others are harder -- I think he's right that there's a lot of background, but I'm not clear what he thinks the right thing to do about it is. I'll also have a think about his comments on the church section. Any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at the article talk page about the maps; hope you can help there. The Deacon's note is a little discouraging; do you think I pushed this to FAC too quickly? If you think so, I'd rather withdraw it until it's in a shape you feel is worth taking to FAC. The work I did on the article was more about form than content, and I can't really judge the value of some of his critique. He gives some specific points which I'll go ahead and deal with, such as the point that Adomnan and Aldfrith were definitely friends. The point about the material on the background being choppy I'm not sure what to do with, though; and as for the background being too extensive -- well, we can cut it, but I don't have a clear idea that he thinks that would make the article better. I'll work on what points I can, but please let me know if you would prefer this withdrawn. (I wouldn't be at all offended or disappointed at a failed FAC -- I'd rather it were an article you and I both feel deserves FA status.) Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looksee

When you find time, can you read over Augustine of Canterbury. I've just finished a large round of edits to it, and as I am really NOT an Anglo-Saxon scholar, I'd appreciate another set of eyes checking it over. I'm going to drop a note on Mike Christie's page too. Feel free to rip it to shreds, I admit to being new to the whole early Anglo-Saxon stuff and very well may have committed a million major blunders in my editing. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I know it has no lede. I usually write those last after I have settled the main text. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Barron

I have a copy of Barron's Scottish War of Independence if there's anything from that book you need. A book I don't have, but which I didn't mention before but is very useful, is Stones' Anglo-Scottish Relations. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington

How does a person put something on Wikinews? I had a version of the page saved in my Sandbox but that was deleted too. --AW (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland map

Draft done; take a look here. Can you proofread it and let me know if you see errors? Any other changes (font, placement, typos, accent marks, etc.) just let me know.

Can we use this as is in Aldfrith, or do I need to do a reduced version with less detail, do you think? I wasn't sure; but I figured you could probably use this map for other Irish articles so I went ahead and did the whole thing anyway.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done more work on the maps; can you take a look at this one and let me know if you see any problems? I've represented Dál Riata twice, in northeastern Ireland and in Scotland, without attempting to link them -- I am not clear how closely they should be linked at this date. If you think it would be beneficial to draw an outline connecting the two, I can do that, though from what I've read it's not clear exactly what the boundaries are at this date. Anyway, let me know if you see anything you'd like me to fix. I will reply to qp10qp on the FAC page. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done; thanks. I will see if I can make a dent in some of qp's other points today. Mike Christie (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Angus, I know you're busy, but I just wanted to mention a couple of edits I plan to make or have made so that you can jump in with an extra source if you have time.

1. The note about Eadfrith having "Irish sympathies"; I couldn't find that in the Blair pages you cited so I cut it. I assume it refers to Eadfrith having sympathy with the Celtic Church's position on various matters, but without a source I couldn't clarify it for qp10qp, so I felt it was safest to cut it.
2. Dunbar as a royal centre: qp10qp asked for clarification and I can't find anything citable in Blair so I presume it's from Higham. I will cut this shortly; if you can give me something from Higham I'll re-add it.
3. Deacon has asked for more specific discussion of the sources. I think a paragraph on sources could be added to the end of the background section. If you can simply list the sources you think should be mentioned, I can create the paragraph. The ones I know of that should be mentioned are Bede, ASC, and Eddius's life of Wilfrid. I assume some version of Irish annals should be mentioned too? I don't think this is really all that Deacon wants; I think he wants to drive the whole article from specific references to the primary sources, but I don't think that's the right approach for a tertiary source like Wikipedia.
4. I think the historical background could be cut a little, and will do so unless you object. Deacon and Awadewit both commented that it was rather long.
5. Deacon wants a coherent discussion of Aldfrith's ties to Iona in one place in the article. I am not sure what he means by this but will think about it some more.
6. Qp10qp indicated he thinks the discussion of the conflict with Wilfrid could be expanded somewhat, so I will probably have a crack at that. Qp is now supporting, so I would assume this will get promoted to FA, but I want to fix these issues regardless.
7. One last thing -- and if you only have time to answer one question, this is the one I'd be most interested in hearing from you on: qp10qp left a long note about where Aldfrith was when Ecgfrith died, and what the relevant sources are. I don't know what the sources are myself so if you happen to know, please drop me a note.

So: if you have time to answer the question or two above, that's great; if not, no worries. Anything left unresolved I'll move to the talk page for future work. Mike Christie (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(I changed the bullets to a numbered list.)

1. I am sure I have a source for this. Will add it back when I find it. 2. Several sources, will add something. 3 Maybe easier if I do this as there are all the non-English sources to consider. Actually, the Deacon wants to reduce reliance on primary sources. 4. I'll let you trim the background. 5. I am struggling on this one. I see what he means but not so simple. 6. The Deacon mentioned Kirby's Wilfred at Hexham, but I haven't seen that. 7. I don't think there is anything much. The Anonymous Life of Cuthbert says he was there c. 684. The surmise that he was there in 685 also is based on Simeon of Durham's claim that Ecgfrith was buried on Iona. It's a bizarre thing to make up, or so it seems to me, but Fraser thinks (thought?) that it may be a misunderstanding on Simeon's part, Inchcolm (Columba's other island) in the Forth being intended. Sharp in the Penguin Life of Saint Columba wonders whether the body went to Iona because Aldfrith was there. Will see what else I can find. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. The Deacon already dealt with 2, adding a source; an explanatory phrase would be good, per qp10qp. For 5, see the note the Deacon left on my talk page; I will try to implement something along those lines later this week, if I get time. 7 That sounds like enough, and worth adding, if you ask me; I think that's what qp's looking for. Mike Christie (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith just got promoted to FA, so I'll move this list to the talk page, suitably redacted. Mike Christie (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Year in Ireland CfD closure

Hi angus

I was surprised and disappointed by your closure of the CfD debate on the years-in-Ireland categories.

I think that your closure was mistaken on on a number of grounds, which I will set out below in a moment, but first I want to ask you to please hold off any deletion of categories or modification of templates until I have finished my comments below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem: I'll give everyone who wants to plenty of time to comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The first general guideline in WP:CAT reads: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles" ... and that's the guiding principle in the structure of this series of articles and categories: to have everything consistently structured and consistently cross-linked to enable easy navigation.
2. The under-population principle is not even mentioned in WP:CAT (it appears only in the sub-guideline WP:OCAT). In general, I think it's a good principle, but like all guidelines it says at the top "As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense", and I am very concerned that the zealous pursuit in this case of the underpopulation principle has been applied without the common sense of carefully considering the wider effects on the ease with which readers can navigate through articles — particularly since many of the deletionists completely ignored that aspect of things, and ONIH misunderstood the issue.
   One crucial point in all of this is that categories, even if they contain only one article, are not simply dead-ends; the template {{IrelandByYear}} not only categorises the by-year categories, it adds a series navigation box to them (see eg. Category:506 in Ireland. This has an important consequence:
   • It means that a single-article category, which in the case of most other categories would be a dead-end, is with all the year-in-Ireland categories a navigation aid to the other categories. That's a very different situation to the conventional one where the only way out is by using the browser's back-button. If we go back to the principle of seeking to "easy for users to browse through similar articles", it's clear that unlike other underpopulated these categories do just that.

On those grounds alone, the debate should not have been closed as "merge", when a headcount showed a keep or no consensus outcome. The "it's underpopulated" argument is only a guideline, not an immutable policy like WP:V, and it should not in this case have been taken as such a trumpa card that it overrides other guidelines.

You note in your closure that you "take BHG's last point about {{YearInIrelandNav}} as significant. This outcome presumes that I can in fact get the template to work in the necessary fashion."

There are two problems here: first, that's not the only template involved, and secondly the changes you have been testing at User:Angusmclellan/yearsinireland would cause precisely the problem which I have been concerned about :(

The two other templates are {{IrelandByYear}}, which cross-links between the yyyy in Ireland categories, and {{IrelandInCentury}} which provides in each xth century in Ireland category a direct link to all the subcats, including the by-year categories. Both of those heavily-used templates run in trouble in the by-year categories are deleted, by providing links to categories which will (according to your Cfd closure) be deleted.

However, to my mind the worst effect would be that to {{YearInIrelandNav}}, where your draft at User:Angusmclellan/yearsinireland would apply a #ifexist test before applying Categor:yyyy in ireland. That's precisely what I was concerned about, because it can lead to the articles not being correctly categorised.

Before that template was created, the year-in-Ireland articles were a mishmash of inconsistent and incomplete categorisation, which made it very dificult to navigate around them. The benefit of having the categories applied by the template is that it ensures consistency, which is essential to allow the reader to navigate around the categories and articles without missing something buy not approaching from a particular direction. If the template finds that thee category doesn't exist, and therefore doesn't add it, then the editor (who will be used to the template applying all apropriate categories) won't see a redlink and is unlikely to spot that anything is wrong ... so the article won't be accessible through the years-in-Ireland categories. That's an unhelpful and un-necessary step backwards, after a lot of hard work sorting out the inconsistencies in these categories.

If I can't persuade you to reverse your closure, please can you hold off any deletion until I have taken this issue to deletion review? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My sandbox version had no purpose beyond testing that I understood how the test worked. Re. the technical point, I agree: a simple ifexist probably is going to be a Bad Idea, but I have plenty of others. In pre-modern times by-year × by-country categories can never be adequately populated, so that some technical solution is necessary to avoid the resulting over-categorisation. There's no deadline to implement a solution - if it takes a month, that's what it takes - and I'm not going to do so until I have agreed the mechanics with you, Sarah, and anyone else that's interested. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on holding of, but in that case the closure should not have been as "merge" but as "no consensus". I have never before seen a CfD closed in a provisional way like this, and it's very unsatisfactory for the closing admin to position himself or herself as the arbitrator of a possible solution which may take ages to reach. I'm sure that your intentions were good, but it's a bit of a subversion of the consensus process for you to create a situation in which you have effectively appointed yourself as a one-man arbitrator.

Please can you revise the closure as "no consensus", and then we can all get down to discussing whether and how a solution can be agreed? (I have a few ideas, but I don't want to try discussing them in this strange situation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there is no consensus: everything we do with categories is opposed to the idea of creating all this stuff to contain on average one article per category. The exceptions that OCAT mentions seems to be, well, exceptions. An albums-by-artist tree is going to include some single-member cats, but that's unavoidable. Here we have a tree where most cats have or will have just one member. If we had tags, then ... but we don't. Creating categories to suit a feature of a template is the tail wagging the dog. And if {{listify}}ing categories and manual merges can take months, then updating templates can too. Far from wanting a veto over how this is fixed, I'd just as soon leave it to you or anyone else to fix it. Just so long as it is fixed.

As far as the stuff below this goes: deletion review is the place to complain; yes, carry on the same way; no bad faith was presumed; and lastly, yes, things can change, and yes, very little is set in stone, but any definition of consensus is going to include more than just the opinions of the handful of people who express a view. Among the other things I rummaged through were Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Overcategorization and other stuff. This comment, although it was about something else, seemed relevant: if Category:Every article is useless, what about Category:Just this article? We must be up to a couple of thousand words now, but still no ideas on what will fill these categories. "Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia". And when they don't help, what then? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Very, very bad call. I wish to challenge this decision - how do I do it? The opinion of all the active editors was totally ignored in favour of the rather limp "arguments" made by some trainspotting deletionists. What do we do with the articles we are creating every day to fill the series while you take a month to fiddle with the template? Do I stop all work? And it is a wee bit ironic to be effectively asking "for time" when about the only major defence of the deletionists was that looking for time to populate the list wasn't a valid defence! If a template can merge years to decades up to 500AD and leave things as they are after that I'd accept a compromise. Otherwise no. Note that some deletionist made an issue of the 660's having only one year with one incident; it took me less than an hour to fill the whole set merely from looking at a handful of Wiki-articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's normal for the closer to execute the actions related to the decision. Angus has made a brave decision which will give him a lot of work. He doesn't have to take input from the Irish history editors into account, and I don't think he should be criticized for offering to discuss with them before taking action.

I still don't see any need for Category:506 in Ireland when we have Category:500s in Ireland. The one-line article 506 in Ireland is already in Category:500s in Ireland, and the article also has a navigation box with a link to that category. Readers looking for information about Ireland around 506 can go straight to Category:500s in Ireland and immediately get links to all 4 relevant articles (having a combined total of 6 lines of content), without having to wade through a number of one-article categories in search of content. It could be problematic if there is a period where it shifts back and forth whether a year has its own category, but if no year before a certain limit has its own category and templates are designed to act depending on which side of the limit they are used on, then the system should work fine and make it easier for readers.

(I would actually prefer to also merge a lot of the one-line articles about old years in Ireland, so readers wouldn't have to go through dozens of articles to find information which would fit well in a list of events sorted by year. I was considering such a merge proposal before seeing the CfD. Category:Years of the 6th century in Ireland has 35 articles. The combined total of information in these, excluding navigation and sources, is around 50 lines. Merging them to a single list would still leave good room for expansion within the same list). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are merely repeating your minority position here. It is getting tedious - only so much baloney I can tolerate. The debate is finished. The ref made a disastrously poor call. Now we have a real problem. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And Angus, as an Admin I asked you to please tell me how I can immediately challenge this decision. The information would be appreciated; the issue of how such a perverse and provocative decision was made is perhaps a bigger issue that the issue of the categories per se. Sarah777 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl already wrote above: "... can you hold off any deletion until I have taken this issue to deletion review?". Angus indicated he would wait. I suggest you also wait with creating more of these categories (I see you created 24 yesterday and just made 4 more within the last 5 minutes.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Angus, I'm discussing this with Sarah777 at User talk:Sarah777#Year in Ireland categories and User talk:PrimeHunter#Strong suggestions where she wrote: "... according to Angus-of-the-Terrible-Decision he is reviewing matters. I asked what we were supposed to do in the meantime? No reply - so I reckon we carry on as before till matters are rectified. OK?". If you think it's OK to continue creating lots of these one-article categories after your close then I accept that. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax guys; I've docked. Think of my as an Oil tanker - when I put the engines into reverse it takes 10 km before I can stop. Sarah777 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The SS Common Sense

Ah, I see I am not the first to complain to you about your closing of this CfD closure. No matter how you read it, there was definitely no consensus on this CfD, so deciding to close as I merge seems like a bad decision to me. As you well know, if there is no consensus then the status quo stays, so a merge should not be the decision. I am highly surprised at this closure, so much so that I think you need to revert it as a bad close. ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help the Angus/Hunter thought process? Sarah777 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD is not a vote. See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Angus made a judgment call based on strength of argument. Given the continued opposition, it sounds likely this will be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That must have been a very rough consensus indeed, and it also says that "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith". Could it possibly be that some posts were ignored as bad faith edits? I really wonder where the rough consensus was. I don't see even that. ww2censor (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it Ww! I was holding the powder dry - but, yes, it appears some arguments must have been dismissed on the grounds of bad faith and I think we need to get Angus out in the open to state which ones he was dismissing on that basis. Sarah777 (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith is just an example of a reason at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. See the second paragraph which doesn't require an estimation of bad faith. Personally, I didn't get any bad faith suspicions in the CfD. I cannot speak for Angus but he didn't mention anything related to bad faith in the close. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't misunderstand the issue, and nor do I need to resort to blatant falsehoods. It was claimed merging the year categories into the decade categories would break a template. This is not true. Look at 506 in Ireland, the single year links are to articles, whereas the decades and centuries links go to categories. No template would need editing for these categories to be merged, because the template doesn't link to those categories in the first place. Why is it even relevant that Category:506 in Ireland has a series navigation box? It only links to 501-509 in Ireland, and 490s, 500s and 510s. The navbox in 506 in Ireland has more links, yet you're saying that Category:506 in Ireland isn't a dead end? You click on the category expecting to find access to more information, and you've got less access to information than before! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That is because AT THE MOMENT there is only a single article in the category. I'm getting bored listening to the same argument over and over, the validity of which depends totally on ignoring the fact that this is under construction. Please stop giving examples of category YY14, YY15, YY16 etcetera etcetera which "only have blah blah blah items". It is becoming difficult to assume good faith with the endless repetition of this dirge. And don't ask me will there be x or y or any articles in the category "Ireland in 666"; I have already answered that with "give the productive editors a chance - wait and see". Sarah777 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If any future article other than 666 in Ireland could have been placed in Category:666 in Ireland under the old system, then what is the problem in just placing it in Category:660s in Ireland or Category:7th century in Ireland under the new system? If the new article is about a notable event in year 666 then that event can be mentioned in 666 in Ireland with a link to the new article. That seems a much better navigational system to me than a large number of 1- or 2-article categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm reading this right

The main gist of the argument is this: Merge/Don't merge Category:665 in Ireland et al, into Category:660s in Ireland. Correct? Merge because there are a bunch of one-article categories, don't merge because at some point, people may write more articles that fit. Is that about it? (template problems notwithstanding)

Seeing as the only article in Category:665 in Ireland, 665 in Ireland, is already in Category:660s in Ireland, aren't we technically talking about a delete here? I'm not against having categories like Category:665 in Ireland if there are enough articles to maintain it. What's wrong with the delete, or merge if you will, until the productive editors write the proper articles? Because let's be honest here, "Wait and see" could be one day, it could be one year, it could be never. How long are we expected to "wait and see"? Why not fix the immediate problem that we have, which is a bunch of one-article categories, and if/when others are written, recreate the Category:665 in Ireland categories? Seems like a win-win to me. --Kbdank71 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. That was basically the arguments by me and other delete/merge supporters in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30#Years in Ireland, where I also noted it looked more like delete than merge. The keep supporters disagreed and still do. They don't think a large number of one-article categories (often with a single line of content in that article) is a problem, so they don't see a need to fix anything now. And several of them think the one-article categories are already better than having no category. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so the only outstanding issue - unless someone plans to open a request at DRV - is what to do with the template. I'm waiting for BHG's view on that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

(from my page - I'm a bit confused here!)

No, not the categories. There's a problem with doing stuff like [[23 April]] [[1014 in Ireland|1014]]. It doesn't work with the automatic date formatting stuff - see this - so anyone who has set their preferences to show US or ISO style dates is going to be surprised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here; I never link to days (eg 24th) or months - I think it's daft. Only to years as in 1014. Sarah777 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting restoration of a page you voted to delete

Sir: I have rewritten the page on Retarded Animal Babies. My version meets all the requirements of Wikipedia. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade.

The rewritten article is temporarily posted here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Eric Barbour (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Omgoodness

Hey Angus, if you thought the Scottish clan articles were bad enough ... think again! I've found a new low: O'Donnell#Ascendancy. That's too good to be removed I'm afraid. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of English Monarchs

Hi. Sorry about that. There was no edit summary attached with the removal and I naturally assumed that it was vandalism. I should have been more careful. Thanks for letting me know. Mkeranat (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Thank you so much for your review. I was beginning to think nobody cared ;) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

i was woundring if you could look at my editor review here a link http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/oo7565 and review and tell me how i improve a become a good editor on here ok thanksOo7565 (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by...

...fair-use cleanup ? Seriously. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ODNB

I've noticed that you've used the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a source on Wikipedia for many Ireland-related articles. I attempted to do the same, but met with the opposition of two editors who seem adamant that this subscription-based service may not be used. I'd appreciate your insight at here. Many thanks.--Damac (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[2] accessibility,[3] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[4] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Gower

Glad to help re husband's name. Found the reference in The Forgotten Pilots which I've now added to the article. At page 19, Lettice Curtis says '(Pauline) ... died ... giving birth to TWIN sons' - perhaps one died at birth ? Had not heard this fact before - may be you can confirm and use? Curtis is usually very reliable. RuthAS (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rum do

Rùm is in a GAC and a user (previously unknown to me) has moved the page to Rùm (island) with no prior discussion and a cursory and quite irrelevant comment on the edit. There is a case for a move as the 'ù' is annoying to type, but this isn't the solution. I don't think I can move it back. Could you help for advise? Thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

When blocking me the other day, Slackr also removed my rollback powers, while noting that they could be restored when appropriate. I'd like them back, please. You can go over my contributions if you like and see whether you think I've ever misused the button. Thanx. -- Zsero (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. #include "GreenLanternOath.h"

-- Zsero (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Leon Trotsky.JPG

1920 stuff most likely is PD, even US stuff would be. I have created a page on copyright in Poland that has some more info on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Europe" cats

Are there any plans for the newly created categories such as Category:20 in Europe and similar to be deleted? For example looking at 20 the category is never going to have much in it, so it looks to me like we've got the exact same one article categories with no potential for growth under a different name. Do they really need to go to CFD, it's system gaming in my opinion. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing is they were all created yesterday. So for example we've got the following one-article categories (there's plenty more too):

• Category:20 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:76 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:80 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:140 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:157 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)
• Category:186 in Europe (deletion log for equivalent Ireland cat)

So we've replaced one set of categories with little or no potential for growth with a "different" set of categories with little or no potential for growth, that contain the exact same article as before. It's madness! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for Fram's opinion. To see how useless the current categories are, see Category:383 and its various subcats, which just add wholly unnecessary levels of navigation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

These categories are wasting the time of readers. I think they should be covered by the CFD and DRV where delete supporters argued that creating mostly one-article categories for years before 1100 is overcategorization. That should hold whatever the categories are called.

Ardfern who said strong keep in the CFD and made these Europe categories has also created tiny categories for years in other European countries since the CFD close, for example Category:410 in Italy which only contains one article Ardfern moved from Category:410 in [5]. Category:410 by country and Category:410 in Europe were later created to hold Category:410 in Italy and nothing else, so three new year categories were created for an article that was already in a small global year category before the whole thing started. There is no article 410 in Ireland. Maybe this is preparing an argument that old years in Europe is part of a general system that should be kept. That is apparently what Sarah777 thinks and calls brilliant.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireland after 1100

Will the CfD close affect years after 1100 or would that require a new CfD? Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland has 43 subcategories for individual years. 39 of them only has the year article. The remaining 4 have a single other article: Category:1111 in Ireland, Category:1151 in Ireland, Category:1152 in Ireland, Category:1175 in Ireland. All 4 year articles link directly to the other article. For all 4, the other article links to the "global" year article but that could easily be changed to the Irish year article. If both articles in a category link directly to eachother then there is even less need for the category. The year articles in the 12th century contain a couple of content lines on average. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You will need a new CfD. But why not; the last one was wonderfully supportive of the productive editors. It is heartening (if rather astonishing) the number of non-contributing and non-Irish editors taking a passionate interest in this work. Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)