User talk:SpacemanSpiff: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:24, 14 August 2015

Click here to leave me a message.

I will be here on and off and may not respond to messages in a timely manner.

Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire

Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire seems to be an article that transcludes a navbox template and says little else. I've never seen this done before and I'm not sure of the merits. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might fail NLIST, but I rarely pay attention to these. Though it looks odd in its current form, at least it should be converted to a functional list like bibliographies etc. Perhaps a merge of the "better known" and the "lesser known" might be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamabad, Telangana

Could you comment at Talk:Nizamabad,_Telangana#Area.--Vin09 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaganti Koteswara Rao.

Hello,

here is my comment :

@SpacemanSpiff: I am glad you replied me fast. I'm having a little difficulty understanding the word "soapbox" in your comment. I was wondering if you can please explain how this page will be classified into that category. Thank you --Vamsiborra (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsiborra (talk • contribs)

Please see the linked page --WP:SOAPBOX, what you've been doing at that article is adding unsourced promotional content. See also WP:BLP which is about how biographies of living persons should be treated. Only add content that can be sourced to reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanniyar

Where exactly did I "It is now clear that you are editing certain pages to proxy for a topic banned/blocked editor."

Please prove that I am proxying or whatever you accuse me of. And second, if you can see what's going on, the reference does not pertain to Lloyd Rudolph.

Merkcid (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 04:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English male writers

Oh, I know, but sometimes bugs creep into the category tree as I'm working. Regarding R. K. Narayan: he appears to have been classified as "English" at some point in the past before I got to the article, and that's what's led to the confusion. Thanks for the corrections, and if you come across any others that look wrong please feel free to fix 'em up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think the lack of disambiguation in the tree is confusing, so people assume that English means English language here and add them (quite honestly, it took me months to realize this too!) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I try to fix things up as I come across errors, but something always falls through the cracks - thanks for spotting me. :-)

Any suggestions for clarifying the tree? I've been creating new categories on the model of previously-created ones, so they all match. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I think one possibility is to create the English-language equivalent categories (they exist for some, but not all) but I think "Indian male English-language short story writers" is a mouthful and is probably a waste of category real estate at the bottom of articles. I'm just creating the Indian equivalent of the people based cats, so maybe that might ease the confusion a little. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense for India, and maybe a couple of other countries. But I can't think of many countries where English and another language share duties as the main language to such an extent that it would be necessary. I was thinking maybe a hatnote of some sort in the category space itself would be better, but it's late and my brain's getting ready to shut down for the night, so I can't think of wording. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main cat has some sort of description, so perhaps that could be made clearer and propagated down the tree? —SpacemanSpiff 05:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a similar problem occurs with actors. Eg: there is a difference between someone who acts in Tamil-produced films/someone from Tamil Nadu who acts in films/someone who acts in Tamil-language films/someone who is an ethnic Tamil who acts in films. Categories on WP are often a complete joke, I'm afraid, primarily because there is no consistency of application in a taxonomic system that relies on consistency for its utility. I've said before that it really needs to be torn down and started again. Hatnotes in category space will not change things much, especially when HotCat is used so extensively - people do not actually see the category space at all, merely the specific entry. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be worse for Assamese as the people from the state are Assamese, the language is Assamese, the linguistic group is Assamese and so on. Same for Manipuri, Rajasthani, Punjabi, etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the main cat later today, then, and see what it says - that might be the route to go. Having said which, Sitush makes some points that I quite agree with. One of the reasons I do so much categorization is that I'm trying to bring some kind of consistency to the articles that do exist, and it doesn't always work. --16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Andhra Pradesh Express

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Andhra Pradesh Express. Thanks. Vin09 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Gender categorization

Dear Spaceman, as per WP:CATGRS, gender categorizations are "non-diffusing," i.e., a male novelist should also be categorized as a novelist. So your cat-a-lot today is problematic! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand that guideline and I still maintain that, assuming your interpretation is correct, the thing is plain daft and needs to be fixed. Still, since it is a guideline it can be ignored. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline makes sense Sitush. When somebody wants to look up Indian novelists, they don't necessarily think of looking up male/female novelists. I personally think gender categorizations are useless, but that seems to be an evil we are forced to put up with. But making them diffusing subcategories makes the problem worse. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Aiaiai. I found the reverse to be problematic when going through pages and therefore did this. But you look at Category:Indian actors or even Category:English novelists, both of them ignore this guideline (though the English novelists cat is only starting to ignore the guideline but it's 50% there). As it is we have a humongous load on the bottom section with every category in the tree going in there, so I thought this would simplify things. Eitherways, I'll stop now, I should never have worked on this cat stuff anyway, that's probably one of the most confusing areas in en.wiki and that's saying something. Personally I don't care for the male/woman thing, but I'd rather not have male this and then this and then why this and all those extra iterations of categories.—SpacemanSpiff 12:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think gender categorisations are generally useless except in some very limited circumstances (sports, mainly). We're stuck with it because of the current social engineering project being co-ordinated by the WMF and political activists who really are not here to improve the project but rather to further their own wider agenda. That said, I refer you to my post in the section preceding this: the entire cat system is an irretrievable mess and should be ripped up. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually Kautilya3, I don't think I'm wrong here. The usual place where such guidelines have edit wars on are the American cats. Now take a look at Category:American novelists. No page except the main article and list are in the cat. The 7500 pages are split between the male and women categories. —SpacemanSpiff 12:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and sportspersons are known to be two places where gender categorisation is appropriate. But writers, journalists, scientists etc. are not normally gendered. As for the Category:American novelists, the diffusing subcategorisation there is by period. All the people listed under male/female subcategories are also listed under one of the period subcategories. User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao has been taking care of a lot of this stuff. So you can let him know if anything needs attention. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above, don't think he's woken up yet. I'll wait for him to before doing anything further. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writers are beginning to be gendered - I've done a lot in that arena recently, but I wasn't the one who began it; I've been building on the work that was done with American writers for the simple reason that other male-writer categories have begun to get out of hand and need to be fixed up somehow.

As to non-diffusion: I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. I understand where its supporters come from, and I'm trying mightily in my editing to honor their wishes more and more (though I do slip up), but I don't think it's intuitive for new editors to think about. Or older editors, for that matter. That's a huge problem, to me - the rules should be clear and fairly easy to understand, and (as I noted above) I think categorization is becoming increasingly arcane. The period subcats throw another wrench into the machine - I'm not sure it's always clear they should be used.

What's the solution? More clarity. How to achieve it? I'm not sure, to be honest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. "Gendering" can't be inappropriate in one area and appropriate in another. I see no reason why we'd gender sportspeople and actors but not writers--sure, many sportspeople participate in gendered competitions but not all do/did (think sailing and shooting, which until recently were not gendered at the Olympics), and why would actors be divvied up? I don't rightly know what "normally gendered" means. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what the right solution here is Doc. The issue came about because I saw XXX Writer, XXX Novelist, XXX male novelist, XXX short story writer, XXX male short story writer all at the bottom of many of these articles causing bloat of what should in theory be an easy navigational tool. This bloat of categories makes it dysfunctional, so I'd moved to just XXX male novelist and XXX male short story writer as the rest are at higher levels in the tree. Personally speaking I don't see the value of gender categorization unless there's some uniqueness to it, but it is what it is. Ideally, categorization should be done away with and we should use wikidata to provide matrix indexing, but until something like that is feasible (and then gets approval on VPP!) we have to live with this. BTW, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, do you think I should copy everything back to the "non-gendered" cats? —SpacemanSpiff 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the solution. To convince all male Wikipedians that they don't need to have a male category corresponding to every female category. How to achieve it? I have no idea!

@Drmies: What I meant by "gendered" is that gender has been recognized to have a relation to the topic. Please see WP:Cat/gender. I think the guidelines are well-thought out, but not everybody might agree with everything written there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I hereby award you the Original Barnstar, for your fine contributions to articles relating to India, and Indian Culture. Keep up the good work! I don't usually give out barnstars or receive them, but your work deserved commendation! Luis Santos24 (Have a good day!) 12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Luis Santos24. —SpacemanSpiff 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Are footsteps a means of transport? check Tirupati#Transport.--Vin09 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but Drmies specializes in all forms of trivia, so he might be able to explain. —SpacemanSpiff 14:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spiff. Well, those are interesting footpaths, it seems to me. I've noticed that geographical articles on the subcontinent are fond of having all those transportation bits. I've always found that totally excessive. But walkies certainly are a means of transportation, but be careful that you don't do so in the Wrong Trousers. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc, most of our village and town articles do read like railway and bus time tables. BTW, have you heard of the 11 number bus? Pretty much means the same as hoofing it, the 1 and 1 refer to the two legs that bipeds possess. In case it wasn't apparent, we're very fond of our buses.—SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Drmies (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RESIGN???

SPIFF! Don't resign over something as silly as a typo! It happens to be best of us! Like me! Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I was wondering if you'd pick it up, I only realized as I saw the edit summary on my watchlist! —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not leaving? Last time I nearly resigned myself. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will if you don't solve the categorization problem. Deal? —SpacemanSpiff 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm out. Goodbye Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) At least you were spared being pinked, as he did to me just last month. That’s a step on the slippery slope to blackening, so preventive measures against such abuses are certainly in order.—Odysseus 1479 01:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, you lot have crazy memories. —SpacemanSpiff 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my edits on wikipedia

I know The Current Situation in World is Worse, Today It Does Matters if any body is right or wrong Truth doesnt count, See what happened With palestine people I cannot let it happen with Maharashtrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem, your edits follow the same pattern as this comment above. Wikipedia is not to set right anything you perceive to be a wrong. —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution noticeboard

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

A case has been filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard by a filing party who forgot to notify you. Please take a look and see if my assessment is correct. It appears that an inexperienced enthusiastic editor decided that Rasgulla should be called Rasogolla, and did a copy-and-paste to create a duplicate article. It then appears, from what I can see as a non-administrator, that you correctly deleted the copy and created a redirect with the alternate name, and locked the redirect to prevent a new copy-and-paste. If this is what happened, then I think that everything is all right and that you did your job as an administrator. If so, the dispute can be closed. If I misunderstood, please let me know what really happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, there's a dispute going on at Talk:Rasgulla (I'm not involved in that). That seems to have been the cause of this forking. I'd suggested that the editor use DRN for that discussion if they weren't able to solve it through talk page discussion -- the discussion is happening between three editors, so I don't know if it's premature or not, I'll let you folks decide that. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that he made the mistake of copy-pasting the article? If he wants to discuss the primary name, he can, but having two articles is (as you know) against policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, not the entire article, just part of it and part that he added but was reverted (if you see the article history you'll see what I mean). It took a while for me to figure out what was going on. Either ways, it's a dispute over multiple issues -- name, origin, dating, source etc and the fork was created to bypass (albeit as a quick and easy solution without an understanding of the issues behind such forking) that discussion. I think it might be best for them to continue that discussion at the article talk page, it looks like there are good sources being discussed and all that, just that there's some impatience. —SpacemanSpiff 04:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content restoration request for Rosogolla

Sir,

As per the following recommendation, available at the page URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rosogolla_discussion I am requesting Content restoration request for the article Rosogolla either to my sandbox or pages like this Talk:Rosogolla/forked content, the reasons for this already discussed in the above said page URL.

"

Volunteer note: Snthakur, the solution to the issue is as follows;

Request a page move on the talk page of the concerned article. We cannot have two articles on the same subject.
It may succeed or it may not. In any case, for your content to be restored, you can ask the deleting admin SpacemanSpiff. (P.S. The content won't be restored to the namespace rather, to your sandbox or pages like this Talk:Rasgulla/forked content).
After which you can manually add the contents to the article. If someone opposes, discuss with them in the article's talk page.

Hope that helps. Regards--☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"

Thanks

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore

hello

what vested interests you have about changing the page name from Bangalore to bengaluru

its same compared to changing name page madras to Chennai ,

if you have little honesty and not vested interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prrash1985 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore

hello

what vested interests you have about changing the page name from Bangalore to bengaluru

its same compared to changing name page madras to Chennai ,

if you have little honesty and not vested interests.

Prrash1985 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 if you have little honesty and not vested interests.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Prrash1985|Prrash1985]] ([[User talk:Prrash1985|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prrash1985|contribs]]) 14:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Bangalore ==
+hello
+what vested interests you have about changing the page name from Bangalore to bengaluru
+its same compared to changing name page madras to Chennai ,
+if you have little honesty and not vested interests.
+ [[User:Prrash1985|Prrash1985]] ([[User talk:Prrash1985|talk]]) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)