User talk:Anne F. Figy

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Anne F. Figy! Thank you for your contributions. I am Nikkimaria and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your message has truly brightened my day, and the information you've included is greatly appreciated – I look forward to reading it. Anne F. Figy (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anne, a few more quick tips for you:

You don't need to write "preview" in your edit summary, you can just hit the preview button and then save the edit.
As you've already noticed with AC/DC, some articles have restrictions on who can edit them. This type of protection is usually denoted with a lock symbol at the top of the page - AC/DC has a grey lock, which means it's protected against unregistered and new editors. However, you have enough experience now that if you want to you can go ahead and edit those articles.
If you're interested, you can join a WikiProject like WikiProject Classical Music - these groups, which often focus on a particular topic area, have lists of requested articles, articles needing improvement, and other things that might be good to work on. If you like the automated suggestion idea, Wikipedia:SUGGESTBOT provides recommended articles based on your edit history.

Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne F. Figy, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Anne F. Figy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Award cats

Hi Anne welcome to Wikipedia. Just FYI, CFD takes a dim view of award categories and they are regularly brought behind the shed and put out of their misery. The bar is very high and very few pass consensus. Lists are way better for this sort of thing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm in the fast lane to learning this. Editors could extend a policy based rationale however, instead of provoking emotions with childish anecdotes and condescending mockery like "blah blah blah". Anne F. Figy (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely vote in those award discussions. I think the problem is, they are constantly growing like mushrooms after rain so they need to be pruned, otherwise we have massive category cruft. Your cats are just another set in a long line. The key thing is whether the award is defining, so the stronger you can make that argument the better - if you can demonstrate it to be defining for most members that could swing it to keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mistakenly appear to believe that I created both of the similar categories being discussed. As far as strengthening my argument, I'm cutting my losses on this one. I wasted enough time already.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not mocking you or awards with "blah blah blah", and I'm sorry it came across that way. When I said "blah blah blah" I was referring to all the other content in the article, like where they were born, when they were born, etc.; I wasn't referring to the award at that point. I'm sorry that it seemed hostile; that certainly wasn't my intent -- it was just an ellipsis in my mind.

Anyway, I came here to say that you seemed to be verging on hostility towards me, and while I get that it feels like an attack to have a category that you created or worked on discussed for deletion, I wanted to say that it ends up being more about the function of the category system, than the content itself. I'm really supportive of awards being included in wikipedia, and maintaining lists in the awards, and including that information in the articles of award-winners. But the category system is not really a good match for awards, or indeed for many attributes. So it's not so much about the individual award as it is about "attributes" of article subjects, and which attributes are, say, more universal for all of those kinds of article subjects. Birth/death; profession; etc. It's more complicated than that, of course, but I think that's a reasonable distillation of what I've learned from watching & working on categories for 8 years.

Best, Lquilter (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and agree. I increased my own stress by imagining things were personal when they clearly were not. Ironically I had just tried to bury the hatchet as well, on the other page, and I already feel better for it. Cheers.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches

The section on the CfD page is already very long and I do not want to hijack, but can you please link to the Google searches you did that return each of the inductees? It seems to me that a person searching Google would reach American Classical Music Hall of Fame and Museum, which contains and will contain an embedded list (thanks for updating!) I know different people navigate different ways, but I am not sure I understand the issue here. I also spot checked your pageview states with Georg Solti; I am not seeing any increase in views associated with a categorization. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree that Georg Solti is almost negligible on the statistics, I wouldn't have included it as an example except for its FA class, and my belief that removing the category would be reverted by someone from that group of watchers. Otherwise, the raw numbers are simply: 5/26=155views 5/27=174 hardly a spike of +19 I rounded to 20, 5/28=184 +29 from 5/26 rounded to 30 and mis-typed as 40, I'll correct that, 5/29 wasn't available when I started compiling this list and I do see that it nearly returned to the 5/26 level. as far as the searching goes, I screened each of the 222 results here, wherever the string: "American classical music hall of fame" is not immediately followed by inductees that string exists within the article's prose. There are 17 examples where that string is within the article's prose, they are: Delta Omicron, John Williams, Gunther Schuller, Samuel Adler (composer), Erich Kunzel, James Levine, Harvey Phillips, Dale Warland, John Knowles Paine, Emerson String Quartet, Chanticleer (ensemble), Jessye Norman, Amy Beach, Frederick Fennell, James Conlon, Georg Solti, Dale Warland and because that string will remain in the article after the category is removed, they will continue to return as a result of searching the string. The rest which only return because the category is in place, the ones where "inductees" immediately follows the string, will not return when the category is gone because the string will not be found on the page any longer, like George Gershwin on page 2 of the results for example. I hope this has answered your question, adequately, and I thank you for reading my long post, even fact checking it, which I didn't actually expect that anyone would. Also I am working an angle to get more accurate page view results than the numbers returned by grok.se, and I hope they will be a little more dramatic. and that maybe some other examples will surface with greater impact. Eventually I'll have all 128 in a table and some better data. I wish the category wasn't in peril, but since it is practically inevitable that it will be deleted, I hope that date will support some kind of subsequent decline in views, so I can maybe put a stop to this process of dismantling categorization on Wikipedia. I have reviewed some of the discussions that led up to the current state of affairs, and it is no secret that some editors with considerable influence, openly say they hope to see the whole category process eliminated. Maybe they are on to something, I wouldn't know. And if someone would have messaged me when I was working on this categorization angle to tell me I might want to consider the deletion trends of categories, I would have been as upset as I became when those who might otherwise know, instead waited until I was finished, nominating the deletion within around ten minutes of my having added the 128th and final article. I couldn't believe it, and I had spent several hours wrangling with it while I suppose at least some actually were in "lay in wait" mode. Oh well.--Anne F. Figy (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat

On another note, have you heard of the semi-automated editing tool HotCat? You can enable it on your user interface if it is not already enabled. I notice you spent several hours adding a category to a number of articles a few days ago, and you may find that this tool greatly reduces the hassle of managing categorization. VQuakr (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]