User talk:Cromium/Archive 1

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

August 2015

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:Former monarchies of South America. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Done. Just got distracted by something else. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for removing the popcat tag! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cromium! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Empire of Brazil". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Would you please explain why you renamed Category:Lists of American politicians and Category:American politicians by state, and any similar renames you may have done? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thank you for asking. I realise that many of the similar politician categories use "Fooian politicians" but in this case all fifty state subcategories of "Category:American politicians by state" used "Polticians from Foo". There are other categories which seem to be ambiguous e.g. Category:Irish politicians, which refers to politicians from the Republic of Ireland but could just as easily include politicians from Northern Ireland (same island, different country). Before I moved these two US categories I'd read WP:Categories, which suggests that this style is sometimes acceptable for people categories e.g. "Foo of the Philippines" rather than "Filipino foo". I've only renamed two other US categories (federal holidays and county seats). Green Giant (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. We usually use the "Fooian" terminology instead of the "of Foo" terminology for categories of people and categories of cultural things. Please discuss any further renames you want to do before doing them. I am going to think about whether to rename some of these back. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do want to rename them back I'll be happy to help move the subcategories and pages back. Green Giant (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, but I'd be able to do it quickly and easily using AWB. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever used Cat-a-lot? Green Giant (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I use it a lot on Wikimedia Commons, but it doesn't run on the Wikipedias. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah well that was the case. It can run on almost any wiki if you add it into your global js page. If you copy the second set of code from my page, save it and purge your cache, it should work here. Green Giant (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I tried it and it works great! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sort keys

Hi, GG. About this edit: when you have an article with the same name as a category it's in, the sort key should be a space, not an asterisk. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop renaming categories without discussion

Maybe you missed it, but above I asked you not to rename any more categories without discussion. I see that you have renamed more of them. I don't know why you thought they needed to be renamed, but they need to be discussed first. For one thing "Kings of Foo" isn't necessarily the same as "Fooian kings". Even if these categories would be better with different names, the names they had have existed for some time, and people should be notified if those names are going to change. Also please note that we do not have to keep our category names the same as anywhere else, and we may choose to use simpler names even if they aren't as precise. PLEASE STOP RENAMING CATEGORIES WITHOUT DISCUSSING THEM FIRST. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Auntof6, sorry but I have to disagree about the "Kings of Foo" and "Fooian kings" because the Belgian kings are/were kings of Belgium, the Afghan monarchs were monarchs of modern Afghanistan (with the exception of Mahmud of Ghazni but even he was based in Afghanistan) and the Polish kings were kings of Poland (albeit separated by time). I have to also disagree with your request about notifying people because that seems to be a case of staking ownership, which goes against Wikimedia principles. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to something that needs fixing simply because nobody else has had the time to do it. If a category has been renamed and you disagree with the new name, then yeah fair enough, we can discuss it but please don't ask me to run every edit past someone else. If I recall correctly you've often made category changes at Commons that people have disagreed with but I don't recall anyone telling you to ask permission before making changes and neither do I recall anyone using CAPS on your talk page. Perhaps you're intention was to draw attention to it but I'd appreciate it if you would rewrite your comment without caps. Green Giant (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

About the kings, etc.: There have been cases (for example, George I of Great Britain) where a person of one national origin became king (or queen, etc.) of a different nation. In that sense, George I was a German king (a German person who was a king), but not a King of Germany. There may not be any cases where this is an issue, but as long as you're making sure everyone in the category was actually a monarch/king/whatever of the named country, it's OK. I actually prefer the "Kings of Foo" wording as well.

About the category renames: I apologize for shouting. My point has nothing to do with ownership. It has to do with making mass changes without the courtesy of notifying fellow editors about them, so those editors know that something major has changed. Even if something needs fixing, if it has existed a certain way then people are used to it and the change can cause inconvenience. I have had discussions before major renames that I've done. An example is when the generic categories for cities, towns, etc. were renamed from "municipalities" and "populated places" to "settlements". You can see the discussion for that at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 104#Municipality categories. That was something that needed fixing, but which I knew was going to affect a lot of editors, so I invited discussion.

The other aspect is that you are a fairly new editor here, in terms of being active. When a new editor makes a lot of changes as you have done, we take a close look at it. Sometimes there are reasons for the way things are, and new editors don't usually know those reasons. When a new editor isn't willing to consider that his or her changes might cause issues here, that's a concern. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing

Hi, Green Giant. Thanks for categorizing pages. If you can, please fully categorize pages when you do this. For example, look at my changes after you added a category to Brandon Sanderson. I diffused the category you added, added other categories, and also added a defaultsort. If you add only one category, then the article disappears from the list of uncategorized pages, which makes it harder to find it again to add other categories. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Green Giant, stop following me and undoing my edits. You have no right to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You scrumbag (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@You scrumbag: Tsk. There, there, am I spoiling your fun? These days we can track every one of your edits and reverse them quite easily. Anyway, you have no right to vandalize pages in the first place. Isn't it enough to be blocked from editing on one wiki? Green Giant (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

QD requests for user pages

Hi, Green Giant. I recommend going to RFD with these user pages. I don't feel comfortable quickly deleting them for the reasons you're giving. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: no problem. I’ve done that for two, but the Chayela one is definitely a copyright violation, so I’ve tagged it with G12 and a source URL. I’ll leave the fourth one be. Green Giant (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted that one. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing ISBN links

Would you mind explaining why you are changing ISBN links to use a template? As far as I know, the coding you are replacing is a standard way of specifying ISBN numbers. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: It is something I have only become aware of a few months ago. I was going to try to fix a few ISBN errors from Category:Pages with ISBN errors when I recalled that magic links like these will be removed from MediaWiki as a feature at some point in the near future. See mw:Requests_for_comment/Future_of_magic_links and phab:T145604 where most of this discussion seems to have taken place. The solution it seems is to use templates to preserve the links, i.e. outwardly there is no difference in how the link appears and where it points to. Once I had fixed a few I was going to suggest it as a bot task but I got waylaid by the last page I edited because it had several errors. --Green Giant (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- I hadn't heard about that. I'll put something in my AWB setup to make the same kind of change (or at least flag when it's needed) when I use it on articles (which isn't often, but every little bit helps). Maybe the AWB developers will even put something in their code to address this at some point. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: If it helps, it appears they are gathered on Category:Pages using ISBN magic links. It seems a relatively simple task, so probably AWB would be fine. The only possible hiccup might be if someone has given the wrong ISBN, thus causing it to have red words after it in the page display, but these should turn up in the first category I mentioned above, which would require human analysis because you've got to check places like WorldCat. Do you think it might be worth putting a note on the admin board? Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that requires admin attention. Maybe a note at Simple talk, to let people know the magic !inks are going away at some point. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, thanks for working to fix stuff in a maintenance category. I know we need a lot of that. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem; happy to help (especially given the latest attempt to close this wiki down). Green Giant (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)