User talk:Rentaferret/Archive 06-02

Football players

Hi there. I wasn't aware that there was a standard for football player articles to disambiguate them. In fact, I think that the addition of "(football player)" is more prevalent then the one that you are moving them to. Further, you seem to be turning blue links to red links, ie here the Charles Roberts link no longer works.

One problem I see right away with using "Canadian football" and "American football" is that a lot of players (especially ones in the CFL) have careers in both the NFL ("American football") and the CFL ("Canadian football"), thus presenting an ambiguaity in your naming convetion. Was there some discussion about this matter somewhere that I missed or is there some Wikipedia page setting out these conventions that I somehow haven't seen? Qutezuce 07:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Before you make a thousand changes can you pause and let there be some discussion first about the best way to do things? Qutezuce 07:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardization is a good idea, but before you go to all the work of moving thousands (?) of pages we should make sure that you are moving them to a good standard that has been agreed upon by many of the contributors to the articles affected, so that your work is not for nothing, and the pages have to be moved again. Qutezuce 07:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As for using the country that they are currently playing that could lead to tons of pages moves for players. Jesse Lumsden has changed countries 4 times in the last 2 years (and might change again next year), and Ricky Williams, who is currently playing in Canada, is probably most identified as an NFL player (he will be going back there next year, only in Canada due to suspension). I think that the location of articles should be relatively static, so that pages don't have to be moved every time a player decides to play somewhere else. Another example is players in the Arena Football League, there are some players who play the entire Arena league season and then come up to Canada and play the CFL season, and repeat the same thing each year. Qutezuce 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One option is to not add the country unless needed. Ie if there are two football players (any kind of football) with the name John Smith, then we add the country to disambiguate between the two. Otherwise we don't need to add the country. This is consistent with other disambiguation convetions for things like movies where we called it "Bad Movie (film)" if there is already an article titled "Bad Movie", but we added the year if there are more than one "Bad Movie"'s, ie "Bad Movie (1992 film)" and "Bad Movie (2001 film)".

But in any case I think that there should be more people invovled in this discussion; as setting naming conventions for thousands of articles probably should not be done with the input of only two people. Qutezuce 07:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i'm writing this so hopefully Chidom will stop making careless edits. If the link works properly there is no need to edit so there is no need to change football to american football as it ruins the links. Also these edits may make less experienced editors think that you have to write american football instead of football on their links. so Chidom just stop--Manfro 91 23:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that in coutries other than the U.S. soccer is refered to as football or fútbol but the links remain as football. I have no problem with what your doing, but if your going to change it to american football than you have to fix the article's title. EX. Chris Baker's article is listed as Chris Baker (football player) not Chris Baker (American football player), so you have to change the article's title. Plus, I wasn't refering to you when I talked about "less-experienced" editors. I was making the point that not every editor realizes what you want to do.--Manfro 91 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

All I meant by the Chris Baker example is that in the 2006 New York Jets season article you changed Chris Baker (Football player) to Chris Baker (American Football player) where no such link exists. Again I realize you want to make a standardized system because wikipedia operates in other countries other than the U.S. but if you do this you have to change the article title.--Manfro 91 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page because intially I was reading the Jets article and I noticed all the red links. When I first posted on your talk page I didn't realize you reverted the edit.--Manfro 91 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Its okay. I think we just had a misunderstanding.--Manfro 91 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cease moving football players until further discussion

Today I noticed several football player articles have been moved for no good reason. There isn't an established naming convention for football articles that I know of and going around changing them all without discussion (and without changing all the wikilinks that link to said articles, hence creating a ton of redirect links) is quite annoying. I would suggest bringing this topic up before Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and try and get a consensus there about naming conventions before moving any more. And if or when you do move more, please change all the existing wikilinks to the player. Thanks, VegaDark 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I'm not opposed to coming up with a standard naming convention, I just didn't think it should be done without discussion & without changing the redirects. The current naming system seems to be working fine to me though, I don't see why we can't refer to both sports as football, as long as they are categorized properly it shouldn't make much of a difference. VegaDark 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Football players—the end

My profound apologies for all of this. I recently discovered Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which says, in part:

"If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and also explain the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below." (on the naming convention list)

I won't go into a long, drawn-out explanation of how I got started on this; suffice it to say that there is a gay porn star with the same name as a football player.

I've now finished updating all the article links so that they bypass the redirect pages that were created when I moved the original pages. I've also been informed that this was incorrect as well, and there's a whole section on it at Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.

In my own defense, my changing all the redirect links may save server time (and money) in the future. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects states: "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link." Arguably, most of these links will be used 10,000 times or more.

Lastly, let me apologize again for the confusion this has caused and reiterate that I am bowing out of the discussion. I feel that a convention does need to be created, but I'm not all that big a sports fan to start with, so I'll leave it to folks more familiar with the nuances.

I'm posting this at several user talk pages in response to comments made on my talk page about this; if you have further comments, please make them on my talk page. Thanks.

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lucas' Dangerous Liaisons Rating

If you have been covering the class-system page, that's only half of it, you also need to take into account the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. Based on both of those, the article is probably no more than a start. It is most likey not B-Class (see Category:B-Class film articles). Cbrown1023 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Fauna of Indonesia

I understand that you do not want the category "Fauna By Country" but could you please explain why you don't want SPECIFICALLY the Indonesian category? I have learnt so much from that category. The tag you inserted said that the proposal only applies to the "main" category of "by country". Please explain why Fauna of Indonesia should be deleted. I don't care so mch what you think of all the countries - perhaps you have a point with "Fauna of Lithuania" or "Fauna of West Virginia" but not Indonesia - one of the richest ecological zones in the world. How do you justify the removal of this category??? --Merbabu 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am nominating Category:Fauna by country and all its subcategories. If the subcategory Category:Fauna of Indonesia is an important one, it can be created as its own category, not as a subcategory of another category. And, by the way, West Virginia is awfully close to my original home. It's not that any of the fauna anywhere are unimportant—it's just that these categories are unmaintainable.—Chidom ^talk  02:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as we don't have to re-insert the category into the current 189 listed articles under "Indonesia". I still don't know why you specifically want to have Fauna of Indonesia removed - you may or may not have a point with "by Country" but your proposal to remove EVERY sub-category seems very heay-handed and blunt. I think a better strategy (and unfortunately more work) would have been to nominate the categories individually. You seem to acknowledge in principle that "important" categories can be kept. What are your criteria for important? --Merbabu 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the parent category (Fauna by country) is removed, all its subcategories will cease to exist or work. All the subcategories have to be nominated in order to have everyone interested in their own category discuss the removal of the parent category.—Chidom ^talk  04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol - your logic is twisted, round the wrong way. It is clear then that you shouldn't remove remove the main category as it will mean, as you say, "all its [often very good] subcategories will cease to exist or work" - rather remove the offending individual sub-categories. If you are too lazy to do that, then don't delete the good valuable work of others who have put together the good sub-categories. ie, you do know the expression "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". The reason i remove the tag is because you have not stated a reason to remove Fauna of Indonesia, only a reason to remove the main category. --Merbabu 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. Every time you add a comment here, my macro breaks. This discussion belongs on the discussion page, not on my talk page. I will make further comments there when I am done nominating the subcategories. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not "stop". I don't care about your macros - you started the issue. And i don't care how much work you "have" to do. You need to provide specific reasoning for EVERY category you nominate. If you choose to nominate 100s of categories for deletion then you can do then work and comment on each one. You have only provided your reasoning for the broad "by country category" and A FEW obscure and admittedly pointless categories that suit your purposes - yet you use this to justify the removal of Britain, Indonesia, Brazil and Australia??? The point is simple - if you put a deletion tag on one category then you need to answer it. If you do not address every category individually then I will be reporting this to administrator. --Merbabu 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you will not comment until you finish nominating - that is not the way to do it. You need to comment AS you nominate. Please provide reasoning. I am in the process of expressing my concerns to admins and asking that they check on your dodgy method of "nominations". I note you still have not provided your reasoning for category fauna INdonesia's removal --Merbabu 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to explain this. In order for me to nominate Category:Fauna by country I have to nominate ALL of its subcategories, one of which is Category:Fauna of Indonesia. I didn't create the system, but I do have to work with it. As for my reasoning, I have been very clear that I don't think grouping fauna by such artifical boundaries as countries is appropriate. It's not a question of individual countries, states, etc.—my proposal is that the structure of Category:Fauna by country is unworkable and needs to be done differently. Category:Fauna of Indonesia may very well be an appropriate category regardless of the decision about Category:Fauna by country, as Indonesia is a geographic region in addition to being a country.

As for contacting administrators, they will explain exactly the same thing. However, if you'd like to avoid being the topic of conversations with adminsitrators, please take care that you are more civil in these discussions; I don't think that "I don't care about your macros" falls into that category. I was trying to finish the task that I was required to do and asked politely that you stop posting messages here as it was preventing me from doing that. I am responding as quickly as I can with the time I have available to spend on Wikipedia. Thank you.—Chidom ^talk  06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, having just read your comment on another talk page, characterizing me as "psychotic" is just unacceptable. If you can't communicate with me or about me in a civil manner, please don't communicate at all. Please pay attention to what has been said over and over and over again. It's not about whether individual subcategories are appropriate or not; in order to nominate Category:Fauna by country, all the subcategories have to be nominated as well. This has been stated many, many times, both here and at the discussion page.—Chidom ^talk  07:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i realise your technical constraint - please don't explain again. But one doesn't rip up roads to scrap a few old cars. The problem with your tagging is that you have NOT provided a reason for the deletion of the individual sub-categories. Yes, i think your actions are kinda physcotic although i could have used less colourful language (come on - 567 sub-categories for nomination all for the SAME reason), but I did not say you were physcopath. This is mainly in response to your "please stop" which i do not think falls into the so-called "civil category" (btw, does wiki stalking also fall into you "civil category"?).

As for contacting you here on your talk page it is because I am very concerned about your proposal yet, you are communicating or replying to comments on the discussion page (which you directed us to use). As for not caring about your macros, well, I guess it is not really my problem. It seems your macros does not do its job if it is not providing a any reason for the removal of each category. If the sub-categories are fine (many of them anyway), why delete the main category.

As for reinstating good categories, who is going to that? Do you have a list of good ones? Could I see it? Do you know which 189 species to put back into Indonesia? Should other editors have to do it?

I hope I you have not taken anything else as being uncivil - it is not my intent (although, may I ever so slightly politely suggest you are being a bit sensitive. if your categorisations were as sensitive it would be a smoother process, IMO). yes, i think it would be more appropriate to discuss this on the Discussion page but i haven't seen you discuss any of this there. If you did, i would no longer feel the need to bother you on your talk page. --Merbabu 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 22#Category:Fauna by country and subcats page.—Chidom ^talk  16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the righteousness. I call spades spades, and if you do stupid things, expect them to be described accordingly. Rebecca 03:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Gene Nygaard 05:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Gay Actors

I posted a message regarding this on the talk page, and Gwernol agreed with me. Also, the article is flashing about don't add actors without articles. I believe I am acting completly reasonable and within the right lines here. Yanksox 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says don't link to articles that don't exist. Two people does not constitue a consensus; please allow other input before continuing. You are undoing a great deal of previous work to make this article more useful. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't usefullness the whole point of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure, it should be more of a directory rather than an uncertain list. That seems like crystalballism, not really knowing anything about the person but allowing them to be on the list. Yanksox 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

But I do know most of the names on the list are gay performers, I discovered that while I was unlinking them and deleting many of them. I'm in the middle of a huge project right now; I would greatly appreciate your waiting a few days for additional input. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know they exist, please, please, please then create at least a one or two line stub with a link. Seriously, that should be more important, it helps everyone. Yanksox 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page with more information about this. The discussion the last time the page was nominated for deletion argued all of this; one of the points was that stubs are deleted within minutes (literally!) of being created. Since these are articles that will fall under WP:BIO, stubs aren't good enough; the articles have to cite verified sources. The list is okay in that regard, no one can complain that they are on the list when there isn't any further information available except their name. They would have to show that the name on the list specifically refers to them, which is impossible to do. I'm moving all this to the article's talk page for wider availability. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, people would have a very good reason to be upset if their name was on the list. If my name was added to the list, it would be mean that someone was using Wikipedia to secretly slander me. Not a good thing. We need to keep this list managable, and not let it stay the way it is. This is how the Seigenthaler controversy devolped. Yanksox 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seperation of issues

Chidom, i noticed that you reverted my changes on the Category for Deletion pages. I see this as unfortunate. Although i was please to have those comments relating to the deletion discussed put on the page, my intent in removing parts of both yours and mine was to remove what looks like bickering (and probably is). It surprises me that you don't agree with this seperation of issues. What exactly is you intent in having those more "personal discussions" clouding up the issues on the public board? How does it help the issue?

PS, as for your comment on the revert, of course i never thought i needed your permission to post your talk content, rather I thought it was something you'd actually agree with. For me, posting onto a more public domain of those off-topic comments probably shows a lack of courtesy rather than a question of permission - I have been working hard to see this issue from your point of view (i really have, if it is not clear from my more recent postings, then i need to try harder for you).

In fact, removing the bickering was part of that process. From where i sit now, your reinstatement shows a lack of faith and a willingness to work together. I also notice that although you have reinstated more negative comments (personally, i think they reflect equally badly both of us - maybe you disagree), I can't actually see you address my commets on the actual issue at hand. Your reinstatement (and your apparent hastiness to claim offensive behaviour) gives me the impression that you are more interested in making a point and showing people up (i think you show us both up equally) than you are interested in actually managing the issue. In fact, i suggest this doesn't fall into that "civil category" you talked about. Please let me know if and how I am wrong here. I am willing to listen and work together - really. Maybe you still think I am being difficult or worse (let me know), but I am now being extra careful in managing an issue (ie the proposal) that we are both clearly interested in. Kind regards Merbabu 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance

I think it is pretty damn arrogant of you to claim, as you did on User talk:VegaDark, that "it is incredibly arrogant, not to mention incorrect, for "football" to be used to refer to the American/Canadian sports". Gene Nygaard 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way.—Chidom ^talk  04:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)