User talk:Grutness

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archives

10/04-01/05	02/05	03-04/05	04-05/05
05/05	06/05	07/05: 1	07/05: 2
08/05	09/05: 1	09/05: 2	10/05
11/05	12/05	01/06	02/06
03-04/06	05-06/06	07-08/06	09-10/06
11-12/06	01/07	02-03/07	04-05/07
06/07	07-08/07	09-10/07	11-12/07
01-02/08	03-04/08	05/08	06-07/08
08-09/08	10/08	11-12/08	01/09
02-03/09	04-05/09	06-07/09	08/09-6 Jan 10
01-06/10	07-11/10	12/10-02/11	03-12/11
2012	01-06/13	07-12/13	2014
2015	2016	01-09/2017	10-12/2017
01-06/2018	07-12/2018	2019	2020
2021	2022	2023*	2024*
*	*	*	*

* = still to archive

Happy New Year, Grutness!

Happy New Year!

Grutness,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And to you too! Happy 2023! Grutness...wha? 23:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cfdshot.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cfdshot.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Felix QW (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: Given that you're talking about an image of a Wikipedia page, it should be obvious that the attribution is CC-by-SA, as is stated on the image page. In any case, the image was only uploaded temporarily with the understanding that it would be deleted once the problem illustrated was fixed. Sixteen years ago. Why no-one deleted it shortly after its use is a mystery to me. PS - for future reference, it's not normal practice to use a boilerplate template implying that someone is new to Wikipedia's standards and policies when messaging long-standing Wikipedians (which I think I qualify as, having been an admin here for a decade and a half!) It's no biggie to me, but you will find some editors getting very annoyed about it. Grutness...wha? 13:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Grutness,

Sorry for the template, and for not being clearer - the notification template is added by Twinkle when notifying editors after placing a speedy deletion tag for a file. The derivative work refers to the Internet Explorer browser rather than the Wikipedia page, and the quickest way to have it deleted now is through a speedy deletion tag. I only noticed it because it has spent almost the entirety of its 16 year existence in a clean-up category for images with disputed licensing, which I am now sifting through to clear the backlog. I could of course have PRODded it instead, which may have been clearer. Felix QW (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense - I never even considered that the browser image would be a problem! Could probably be speedied since I'm the only editor of the image file itself - all the other edits are clean-up/deletion template adds. In any case, feel free to delete it :) Grutness...wha? 13:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Philip Clairmont

Hi there, I was thinking of doing a page on Phil Clairmont and found you had already done one some time ago. I knew Phil very well and would like to expand the page but seriously don't want to cause you any grief given how kind you have been to this newcomer to Wiki. Not sure how to move forward on this. Would it be appropriate for me to send you a copy of what I have? And if so what is the best way to do that? - can you look at my sandbox page for instance. Essentially I have expanded the biography and added an exhibitions section. Strangely the name Clairmont was invented by Phil's mother and not given to him until he was quite old...no idea where she got it from. Hope your New Year has started well. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Manymanydogs: Don't worry about it - go ahead and post what you have on that page. Wikipedia doesn't work by one person "owning" a page - if you can improve on a page that's already there, just go ahead and do so - but don't be surprised if someone else comes along and edits or adds more to it again later! The only proviso I'd make is to make sure what you put there is referenced - knowing the person you're writing about is a big advantage, but it can also be a problem because anything that put there which you simply know by acquaintance and isn't referenced might be challenged as original research or conflict of interest. Other than that though, feel free to add whatever you have to the article. Happy new year to you, too! Grutness...wha? 01:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Will check it over and make the changes later in the week. Manymanydogs (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

No prob :) Grutness...wha? 02:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Princes Street, Dunedin

Princes Street, Dunedin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

18th Adminship Anniversary

Grutness, I had to add a more personal touch to the template and thank you, not only for the time you spent as an admin here but for your message of community. I fully believe we need more co in community and I support any effort to build the community as a structure around the encyclopedia bolstering its purpose and effectiveness. You have my upmost respect and appreciation. I see your Colors and I hear your Song. Keep shining and keep singing. Remember to be a Rainbow in someone's sky, today. --ARoseWolf 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do my best :) Grutness...wha? 02:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Luhwa

The article Luhwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The correct name of this city is Ruhwa which is located at Burundi. There is no place which is known as Luhwa

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BangJan1999 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

St Peter Chanel School (disambiguation)

Hallo, I'm puzzled by your move: there doesn't seem to be a primary topic, so surely the dab page should be at the basic name? Or am I missing something? PamD 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I was puzzled, too, TBH. Schwede66 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Tired editing :) I'll move it back. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

These things happen! Thanks. PamD 06:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Index troubles

Hi there, Sorry to use you to patch up my errors again, but noticed that in the Robert Leonard page the category listings for 'New Zealand curator' and 'art writer' have Robert's name indexed under R rather than L. As you can imagine I have no idea how to sort this out. Can you help? Cheers Manymanydogs (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Manymanydogs: Sure. It's easy - there's a special "magic word" template called Template:DEFAULTSORT. You add it above the category links at the bottom of the article with however you want the categories to sort (in this case, {{DEFAULTSORT:Leonard, Robert}}). If you want some categories to index one way and others in another you can pipe categories in exactly the same way as you pipe article links (e.g., [[Category:New Zealand curators|Leonard, Robert]]). Hope that helps :) Grutness...wha? 00:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennings, Saint Mary for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennings, Saint Mary is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennings, Saint Mary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

it's all fading away^talk 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre. Perfectly acceptable article, now saved. Grutness...wha?

Cornwall football teams

What is a football league pyramid? And why single out one team? That is what I meant by puffery. Also you gave no source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: The football pyramid is the English football league system. Truro City FC is by far the highest ranked Cornish team, in level six, two flights below League Two. The next highest-ranked Cornish team is Mousehole FC, two flights lower down in level eight. There are several Cornish teams in level nine (Falmouth Town, Helston Athletic, and St. Blazey), which is where Mousehole played last season - it would thus seem odd to include them and not the other three teams. So it was a case of listing just Truro or listing five teams. This is all thoroughly cited and sources in the articles on Truro City F.C. and National League South, and the pyramid is explained at English football league pyramid. BTW, "puffery" means excessive hype, which would be a very odd description for what I added, which was factual objective information relating to sport in Cornwall. Grutness...wha? 12:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Much more accurate to say they play at various levels in the English football league. Must say that during 50 years working in sports coverage, I've never heard it referred to as a pyramid. Teams being in the lower leagues is hardly noteworthy enough to warrant mention in the county overview. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

None of them play in the Football League. They play in the English football league pyramid, and all the clubs are below the Football League level. And the level of the top Cornish team in the pyramid is definitely noteworthy enough for the sports section of the article. I'm amazed that someone who has worked in sports coverage so long has never heard of the pyramid - it is the standard way of referring to it, and has been for quite a few years now. Everyone from the BBC to the Premier League refer to it in that way. The same term has become common in other national football league systems, from New Zealand to Ghana. Grutness...wha? 13:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Thanks! Could you do the same with James Clark (New Zealand cricketer) - seems to have been known as Bernie so Bernie Clark - which is a redirect - would seem to be the best option. I don't think I can move over redirect (if I can please tell me how to!!!). If you get a chance. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK - will do. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Another - George Kitt would like to move over redirect to Arthur Kitt when you get the chance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. Grutness...wha? 13:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hip Hop requests

Could you change the Hip Hop template to look more like this?

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

• {{Grutness|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
• {{Grutness|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

τ Grutness

2600:6C5A:417F:794E:2C23:3F05:A66D:15C3 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Done - but don't be surprised if someone decides it was better the other way and changes it back. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nova Paul

Hi there, thanks again for tidying up my casualness. It was a big overhaul of the page but she is such a great artist. cheers, Jim Manymanydogs (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem :) Grutness...wha? 05:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I notice that the styling has gone a bit awry...not sure how or why (might just be my machine that is a bit off at the moment). If you have a minute sometime could you look at it. I know I should be doing code but the visual editor is about as much as I can manage at the moment and don't think it is up to it! Cheers Manymanydogs (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that it is a style you have engaged when there is more than one item per year. Manymanydogs (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you watching my edits?

Nothing wrong with it, I've just noticed that you've been editing articles that I've also edited. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: I was while you were making the new island articles. Other than that I do a lot of checking on new NZ articles in general, so it's likely that I'll have seen any that you've made. No offence intended! (FWIW User:StolenThought probably thinks the same - s/he's been making a lot of NZ football articles lately that I've edited!) Grutness...wha? 05:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So your recent edits to Face-ism and List of cryptosporidiosis outbreaks after I did was a coincidence? Don't take my curiousity as a form of annoyance or anything, just curious that's all! —Panamitsu (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The crypto one I got to from the Queenstown outbreak one. And yes, the other one was coincidence (I had no idea you'd just edited it!) - my university thesis was in visual perception and I often edit articles related to it (such as my edit to McCollough effect and starting of an Interocular transfer stub today). Grutness...wha? 07:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's quite a funny coincidence! Apologies for my borderline paranoid sounding question, my curiosity got the better of me :). No offense taken! —Panamitsu (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

'New' marine reserves

I'm not sure if you've heard, but six new marine reserves have been announced. You've created a lot of NZ geography articles so you may be interested. I've created drafts for all of these reserves. Draft:Waitaki Marine Reserve, Draft:Te Umu Kōau Marine Reserve, Draft:Papanui Marine Reserve, Draft:Ōrau Marine Reserve, Draft:Ōkaihae Marine Reserve, Draft:Hākinikini Marine Reserve. It will probably take until next year until they officially become marine reserves, which means that a new government has the possibility of scrapping them. Do you think that it would be WP:TOOSOON to publish these into article space? —Panamitsu (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

mmm. Possibly. I'd wait until a few more details are know - about their extent, for instance. It'd be good to actually have location maps for them and it might take a while until the actual boundaries are finalised. Good work though, and I'm pretty sure that there will be enough for article space long before the reserves are actually inaugurated. It might be also worth asking a couple of other prominent NZ editors (someone like User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, and User:Paora) for their opinions. Grutness...wha? 09:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: Yes, I'd suggest waiting until the reserves are gazetted and in place before publishing. Until then, they are merely proposed reserves. Paora (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 –  @Panamitsu Perhaps you could add a list of "Proposed reserves" to Marine reserves of New Zealand and redirect to that list for now? PamD 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 00:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rugby league players from Aberdare

A tag has been placed on Category:Rugby league players from Aberdare indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: It looks like User: Crowsus had emptied this into its parent category, for no apparent reason. Worth watching other League player by town in Wales categories, which may have suffered the same fate (I rescued two others as well). Grutness...wha? 05:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup - I've found 12 others which have been similarly emptied :( Grutness...wha? 05:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aaand he's been doing the same with other sports, too. :((( Grutness...wha? 06:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For F's sake... he's removed categories from over 2000 articles! Over 250 rugby league and rugby union categories have been emptied. I hope you can hold off deleting them - they should be repopulated. Grutness...wha? 06:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my part in creating this unnecessary workload. I've been tagging empty categories for almost as long as I've been an editor which is 10 years now. Crowsus does a lot of recategorizing for sportspeople categories, particularly for athletes in the UK, although I had never seen it done before at this scale. Maybe he was using AWB? That editing tool can result in small problems escalating into larger ones. I've posted notices to their talk page asking them to not empty out categories but I've found that editors who do a lot of work with categories and recategorizing projects ignore those messages because, I suppose, they believe that their experience and expertise allows them to know better. In fact most categories that are "emptied out of process" are done by either very new editors or very experienced editors that I see regularly at CFD discussions. And, I'm not sure you've noticed this but it is harder to get experienced editors to change how they edit than it is to get less experienced editors to adapt their editing habits.

But I shouldn't have relied on my past experience with Crowsus and their recategorizing efforts blind me to the fact that working outside of CFD on a recategorizing project at this scale needs some community review. Because I see all of the categories that have been emptied, I do know of at several other editors who over the past few months have done something similar on less visible subjects than athletes, like changing the categories for all of the villages in Turkey or the districts for many of the towns in the Ukraine. Since I'm not an expert on rugby or cricket players or villages in Turkey, I usually bow to their experience and knowledge but if you have a better solution to experienced editors emptying categories or recategorizing entire branches of a category tree, I'd welcome hearing your opinion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, almost all of the 300+ categories that Crowsus emptied had been created by the same, currently blocked editor so I had thought perhaps they had been incorrectly set up. But that's still not a great excuse for me not to stop after the first dozen of empty categories and ask what was going on. But in case you are unaware, empty categories sit in a holding category, Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion, for 7 days just to address problems like this should they arise. It often happens that categories are only temporarily empty and the tag is removed. But the tagging of the category starts the 7 day waiting period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, finally, there is a little-known but great script, User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer, that will allow you to see what articles/pages have been recently added or removed from a category, which editor added or removed them and the date of the action. It's very useful for repopulating categories. For some reason, we have quite a few editors who nominate categories for deletion at WP:CFD and then empty the category before the discussion is closed. I've stated many times how this defeats the purpose of having a deletion discussion but that hasn't stopped it from happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And now Crowsus has repeated their actions and there are over 200 categories that have been emptied (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories). I'm certainly not going to retag them since they have already gone through tagging and untagging process. I left a message on their talk page but this is becoming disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for all your help on this! Grutness...wha? 01:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Grutness, to be honest, I don't know what to do at this point. There are still almost two hundred Sportspeople from X categories that are empty for several days now. Do I retag them? Do we revert Crowsus' edits? They are clearly not going to do so despite requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm filling a dozen or so per day, but I simply haven't the time to go through all of them in one hit. Reverting might be the best way - that way at least we'll know which categories are undersized and can be sent to cfd. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: - I think I've refilled all 300 or so (except for a few which didn't have any potential entries, which I deleted), and made "back-trees" for a few where it didn't look like they'd be viable (e.g., for Rugby union players from Foo, I might have needed to make Sportspeople from Foo, People from Foo, and Foo categories). Next it'll be a case of going through them in batches and see which ones should go to cfd. That was a lot of work, and I think I need to have a lie down now! Grutness...wha? 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Grutness, thank you for taking on this time consuming task. If it was me, because I know nothing about rugby, I would have considered doing a big revert of all of the edits that emptied these categories but you took your time and were more careful about it. I realize what an investment of time that probably was. I still see a few of them in the Empty categories category but I assume they are legitimately empty. Thanks again and I hope this kind of incident doesn't come up again...we might not always have an admin or editor who cares as much about fixing the problem as you did. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No prob - just chalk it down to my OCD :) Grutness...wha? 01:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Summer City (Wellington)

Just like to thank you for your fine edits on the summer city (Wellington) article... barthomme b'art homme 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme (talk • contribs)

No problem - glad they were appreciated! Grutness...wha? 03:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Two Cars, One Night

Hi, I am asking you this because you are living in New Zealand and have edited Two Cars, One Night. My curiosity is piqued on one small issue (too small to ask that on the article's talk page): None of the prominent featured cars have side mirrors, the "middle-mirror behind the windscreen" is featured, though. Are these side mirrors at the outside of driver's (and front passenger's) side not mandatory in NZ? The cars also not look like these mirrors have been removed for a better filming experience. -- Rava77 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

For cars manufactured from 2000, they must have an internal mirror plus a right-side external mirror. For cars before 2000 (which would probably apply to the film you mention), they must have either an internal mirror or a right-side external mirror.[1]-gadfium 05:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it, the cars all look like they have been manufactured before 2000, so only the internal mirror would do. Thanks for the heads up. Rava77 (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup - Gadfium's right. Thanks for answering Rava77's question, G! Grutness...wha? 07:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2000s New Zealand single stub template

Hello,

What happened with Template:2000s-NZ-single-stub and Template:2000s-NewZealand-single-stub? They redirect to each other and I can't find any remnants of the original template in either page's history... Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Damn good question. I've restored an early deleted version of the stub - should work now. No idea why the move went dramatic. Grutness...wha? 02:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Clyde Quay School Wikipedia page

Hello, I have chose to revert your edits because of how you reworded some sentences. They felt too simple and you didn't put sentences in the right order. But however, I did re-add some things that I reverted from your edit because I found them to be useful. Thanks for the new features though. I'm happy for you to edit more, but please don't simplify sentences too much. Wetbeans (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

And please don't revert my changes before I can respond. Wetbeans (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I will fix your edits. Wetbeans (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, sorry if I sound aggressive. Wetbeans (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's surprising that they "felt too simple" and weren't "in the right order". I suppose my 25 years' experience as a professional editor hasn't stood me in good stead - as indeed my 18 years as an editor on Wikipedia. But that's OK. I'll have a look at the article again and see if there are any mistakes that need fixing. PS - I'm glad that you are happy for me to edit more, because that's how Wikipedia works. Once a person has written an article, anyone can edit it to improve it. Please check WP:OWN. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should've checked it again. I genuinely have no idea why I said it was too simple. I like what you added, and I built off it because it was good. Just re-reverted a couple of things. They weren't major. Wetbeans (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

S'alright. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Frederick Fulton

Hi - I haven't done this before but have noticed an error in the Valpy-Fulton-Jeffreys family tree - James Fulton and Catherine Valpy Fulton had 7 children (not 6), and the son you called Henry is actually Herbert Valpy Fulton. He was the father of Julius Herbert Fulton (1901-1973) founder (with Bob Hogan) of Fulton Hogan . 103.250.118.72 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

OK - thanks for that. I'll see whether I can change the tree, though it may need redoing in an interactive form (which is beyond me). Grutness...wha? 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Snow fields of Victoria Land

A tag has been placed on Category:Snow fields of Victoria Land indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Woollaston

Hi there,

Just to say I have added quite a bit to your Woollaston page.If you have a chance to have a quick look it would be great. Hope it is all ok and thanks for your initial page, there's still a lot of NZ art people without one. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Haven't checked it thoroughly, but it looks good! I'd do more NZ art articles myself, but I write about NZ art for a living, so it feels too much like work :) Grutness...wha? 06:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Boy do I owe you for fix the name of the Brooke Gifford page. Thanks so much for your continued help. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Manymanydogs: No prob. I keep an eye on NZ art-related articles because I work in the field myself (I review art for the Otago Daily Times). Grutness...wha? 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mountains of King Edward VII Land

A tag has been placed on Category:Mountains of King Edward VII Land indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do people keep emptying these categories??? Grutness...wha? 04:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Czech geo-stubs

Hello, Can you please stop with the mass edits until the discussion about proposed deletion will be over? The use of these categories is unsystematic and they are just a historical relic. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@FromCzech: There is clear evidence that the templates and categories were originally acknowledged for use at WP:WPSS (they are listed here). There is also clear evidence that they would be useful - the Central Bohemia category is over the limit at which it should be split at WPSS (600 stubs). It seems that simply no-one got round to populating them. All I am doing is using the stub templates as they were intended. If the categories do not measure up to the 60+ stubs needed for each, then they can be upmerged with no prejudice against them being re-created if and when they meet the required 60 stub standard. In any case, the original proposal, of deleting the templates, is flawed. If the templates were malformed or not in accordance to stub sorting practice, they would be deleted, but these would simply be upmerged to the main category anyway. The only real way to tell whether they reach that standard already is to stub them appropriately. As such, I am simply following standard practice for WPSS - and also for CFD, in which there is long-standing tradition that if it can be shown that a category is useful (which in stub-sorting means reaching the 60-stub threshold) it will likely be kept. I will, how3ever, complete the district I am currently working on, and then pause. PS: If they are a historical relic, then they should not be categorised within the permcats for the various districts (e.g., Category:Populated places in Benešov District) and the whole of the Central Bohemia catalogue tree needs to be changed. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pause. Only three districts would exceed 65 stubs (Benešov and Kolín being two of them), and the rest are below 60 or have 61–65 stubs and will soon fall below your threshold. From the logic of the matter, it does not make sense that only three districts should be singled out from the whole country so that Central Bohemia could fall below 600. The current number does not make it over-sized. 60 is the bare minimum, but that doesn't mean it has to be blindly followed when it clearly doesn't make sense. FromCzech (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense for three to be singled out if they all fall above threshold. That's the way stub sorting works. You can see upmerged templates in many similar stub categories, just waiting to reach the point where they reach the threshold. If they fall well below the threshold, then they become upmerged; if they later reach the threshold, they get their own categories. Have a look, for instance, at Category:Bulgaria geography stubs, which has some regions split out because they reached threshold, and more umperged because they haven't. The same is true with Category:Kazakhstan geography stubs, Category:Ireland geography stubs, Category:Lithuania geography stubs, and Category:Spain geography stubs. And that's just looking at top level categories, and only at Europe. You're also likely to find that the number of articles - and therefore the number of stubs - grows. At the moment, there's only towns and villages with articles, but sooner or later, it's almost certain that rivers, mountains, lakes, forests, caves, and the like will all get articles. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I remind you result of our discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 16). The CentralBohemian stub ctegory is not overized and the sub-categories should remain empty. I don't understand why you started acting contrary to the compromise of the debate. FromCzech (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The result of the debate - and I quote - was keep and populate the templates. As such, I am doing exactly what the CFD discussion decided. And all of the templates currently point to the subcategories. If any of the subcategories fail to reach the required viable number of stubs, then they can be proposed for upmerging, but no categories were proposed for deletion in the previous discussion, so as they are there and the templates are pointing to them, that is where the stubs will go unless they are proposed. What I don't understand is why you reverted all the district template use - for instance here, without mentioning in your edit summaries what you were doing. This was completely contrary to stub-sorting practice and in direct opposition to the decision reached at CFD. Grutness...wha? 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't notice it was so explicitly stated in the header. But I don't know on what basis, because no one else followed my last post and you were the only one to speak up for their populating. I emptied the category that was full, because I thought that was the agreement. But although the result is there as it is, in my opinion the categories where the number does not reach 60 should not be filled. FromCzech (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

So far, the only one I've worked on that hasn't has reached 58 so far. Grutness...wha? 17:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the easiest way to tell from here is to populate the templates, as was stated, and then it'll be easy to tell which categories don't meet the target. From there it would be a simple job to propose the categories for deletion and to upmerge the templates for any that are deleted back into the main CBR category. That would not mean changing the template on any of the articles - it would simply mean repointing the template to the parent category. Grutness...wha? 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As to why that was the decision, of the discussion, it was almost certainly because my argument was based on long-standing practice. Yours wasn't. Grutness...wha? 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to believe what is "long-standing practice" and what isn't when no one else has gotten too involved in the discussion. E.g. you called the 600 stubs limit as common practice, but that's the limit you stick to, not Wiki policy, which says 800. FromCzech (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's been standard practice all the time I've been in the stub-sorting project - which is almost 17 years now. By Wikipedia standards, that's definitely long-standing, and the closing admin clearly understood that, as do most people who've had anything to do with stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I resign, fill the categories out as you plan. But I'm continuously de-stubing articles, so please respect, if the category is under 60 and should be upmerged or whatever you call it. FromCzech (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I will nominate any category that is too small for deletion. BTW - I looked at quite a few of the articles on Czech villages that weren't marked as stubs, and about half of them should have been. Many of them only had about three or four sentences of text. Grutness...wha? 18:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If a municipality is small and there is almost nothing, even a few sentences can be an exhaustive description, or at least enough to be on Start level per Wikipedia:Content assessment definition. FromCzech (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I know that - please check out my essay on the subject. But in some cases those articles clearly have so little information to not qualify as Start-class. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Museum award

		The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
		Congrats Grutness! You've received an Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for creating the articles on Victoria Theatre, Devonport, one of the locations on the museum's list of requested articles. Prosperosity (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! Grutness...wha? 03:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Mexican baseball players

Hello there! I agree with you fully about the populated place category. Since you have added a new one, I've withdrawn my nomination but I would love for some help to recreate the deleted categories for players from major cities like Monterrey and so on. I tried to in deletion review but nobody agree nor disagreed on recreation. You think its okay to recreate? Especially since the reasons for deletion were incorrect, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia: I got into a bit of flak for creating categories in the first place. Personally, I think they make sense, though. I'll re-make the Monterrey one but I'll probably stop after that, in case it gets someone's ire up again. Grutness...wha? 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grutness, I will back you up on it if you do get any ire. It just doesn't make sense to NOT have those while, concurrently, there is a whole tree of sportspeople by city and sport (see Category:Sportspeople by sport and populated place). Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Grutness...wha? 11:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia: There are now eight subcategories. Pretty sure those are the only viable (≥ 5 article) city-level categories for baseball in Mexico. Grutness...wha? 12:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Albanian basketball players by populated place has been nominated for merging

Category:Albanian basketball players by populated place has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. User:Namiba 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)