User talk:Xdamr/Archive 12

Category:Awards and decorations of World War II

Hi, you deleted Category:Awards and decorations of World War II. I cannot find what had happened with it? Was it renamed or deleted at all? - Altenmann >t 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User error meant I provided the wrong summary when I deleted it - it should have been WP:CSD#C1 (empty). That aside, in my own opinion medals-by-conflict doesn't really work as a scheme in the present categorisation setup. I can see people tending to want to add any medal which has been awarded during that period, rather than medals which were solely awarded for that period. eg Victoria Cross would, on basis of the former practice, have a category for every war the UK/Canada/Australia/NZ/etc have been involved in since 1856. To make it work we can only categorise for multi-nation large-scale conflicts. By my own reckoning, this idea would only really work for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Gulf 1, and, as I say, it would only make sense if restricted to campaign medals solely awarded for service in these conflicts. Perhaps this is something best accomplished in dedicated articles for each of these wars?

Xdamr^talk 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Xdamr. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Categories/Editorial resource pool.
Message added 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I hope with your interest in categorization you will allow me to place your name into the list of people to whom I or other editors may turn to for help with the development of a categorization scheme for the Chicago Project. Because the development is in such a raw and rough state I really haven't used anyone. I am getting close and hope that when I'm ready I might be able to count on you to review, comment, and suggest things related to the development. Pknkly (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Pknkly (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll be happy to give pointers for any queries you might have. Posting on WT:CFD will also get you an informed audience who will be pleased to advise. Good luck with it. --Xdamr^talk 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Pknkly (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD Place of birth missing

I am sorry to bother you and even more sorry that I was not a editor when this discussion occurred but there are three points that were not covered in the discussion and I wonder if your decision might have been different if they had been covered.

1. This category is most closely related to the thousands of "People from Foo" categories and coveres those people for whom Foo is not yet known. All other "People from Foo" categories are on the article page.
2. The only page that contains the Place of birth is the article. It can appear there in as many as three places — the lead paragraph, the infobox and the persondata. Once a person's place of birth is determined and the relevant category is created the tag for this category should be deleted. Is it reasonable to ask and edtor to create on the article page and delete from the talk page?
3. Any category tag that is on the talk page must have a separate sort value in the category tag. If the tag is on the article page the value of {{DEFAULTSORT}} will determine where the page is sorted. The |listas= only affects the categories that are generated by project banners and {{blp}}.

Thank you for your time. JimCubb (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooof, that was a long time ago, let's see... From what I recall at that time we had seen a significant movement to move all 'maintenance' related categories from main article pages. Basically the thought was that readers shouldn't really be burdened with the minutiae of what was wrong with the article, but rather it should be hidden on the talk page so that it could remain available for editors. That being the case, in spite of point 1 that you raise, that rationale of hiding editor-specific content seems to hold. Point 2 isn't clear to me, but I think we are both in agreement that the category should be removed from the talk page once an appropriate place of birth is on the article itself.

Xdamr^talk 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename moved to full D/d-iscussion

The speedy rename of Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD has been moved to a full discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - juDging from what's been written, I think I might have maDe a new frienD this past couple of Days. I knew it was a good iDea to keep my blank verse up there... --Xdamr^talk 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Test categories

Hi, I'm sure you're more familiar with policies than I am, but I don't think that your closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5#Test categories was correct. WP:CSD#G2 explicitly excludes "the sandbox", which I think can be taken to include legitimate sandboxes in all namespaces, especially those linked directly from WP:Sandbox, (which Category:X1 is, by analogy with Template:X1 through Template:X9). This is why they weren't speedied in the first place. Can you please review? • Anakin ^(talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've investigated these categories a little further and, on reflection, I think that the best course of action would probably have been for me to have cut down the numbers from 4 to 2. That said, there is nothing to stop them being re-created at any point for testing purposes. Which do you prefer, the Test 1/Test 2 series or the X1/X2 set?

Xdamr^talk 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a bad close. The close did not reflect the discussion. The speedy criterion should not be used to override explicit statements in a discussion. Speedy criteria are for cases that would be frequent SNOW deletes, which was clearly not the case here, which means that this situation is clearly not in line with the intention of the speedy criterion. I believe that these categories, two at least anyway considering VegaDark's point, should not be delete for the same reason that the sandbox is excluded from CSD#G2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I've already acknowledged as such. --Xdamr^talk 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think X1/X2 (rather than Test/Test2) should be undeleted (or recreated) for the reasons I already gave:

1. analogy with Templates X1/X2
2. linked from sandboxes
3. CSD#G2 should not apply

I don't think the Test pair are important, though they've a history of being recreated anyway. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That was what I thought - these categories would be open to re-creation for further sandbox-y testing anyway, so what was the issue with deletion now? Of course that is also an excellent argument for their retention... Happy to go with X1/X2 for now - as you say, the Test categories will probably end up re-created at some point anyway. All in all, a very profitable Cfd nomination!

Xdamr^talk 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be beneficial to discuss rather than speedy myself (the latter two, at least) because 1) A CFD delete closure allows for G4 deletion, which allows for page protection from creation after it's been created too many times (I suppose page protection could be used for G2 deletions, but I'd prefer not to in such cases). I'd support a soft redirect to the X1 categories as well. 2) I thought the naming convention of "Test" was probably a more intuitive term than "X1", so I thought a discussion on that would be beneficial. I think the discussion went more away from this aspect though, and would still like to consider a discussion on this part (perhaps MfD would be a better venue, however, if similar templates are named X1). VegaDark (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I wasn't taking a dig at the nomination itself, just its outcome :) I agree that these 'X' categories are more than a little cryptic though. I'm not sure how we ended up with this naming, but I would certainly think it better to change them. --Xdamr^talk 04:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Africa

I have recently overhauled WikiProject South Africa with the following:

• Improving collaboration of participants by adding an Open tasks section with specific as well as common tasks
  • Added link to the CatScan tool to find articles needing cleanup, referencing and expanding
  • Added common tasks that should be performed on Portal:South Africa
  • Added information on how to add Geographical coordinates
  • Added articles missing Images
  • Added assessment information
• Improving the layout to make access to information easier
• Added simple "How can I help?" instructions for new project members
• Extended the Resources section to assist participants in finding South Africa related information
• Added bot generated Article alerts
• Added a bot generated Cleanup listing
• Added more information on template usage
• Added a section on language usage
• Improved the categories section with trees for category:South Africa Wikipedia administration and category:South Africa
• Added link to Wikipedia Books
• Marked inactive sections of the project as inactive

Comments, constructive criticism and suggestions for improving it further are welcome --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Xdamr. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith

Consensus If you review this discussion, I do not think there is a consensus to delete (if you take a straight vote on the matter, that is certainly not true.) Barring a clear consensus to delete this category, I think that you are being too brash in suggesting that the outcome of this discussion was to delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. When you can conveniently review this matter, please post on my talk. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

Hi Xdamr, can you explain to me why Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_14#Category:Analysis was closed as a delete ? That category has a proper rationale. Thanks Mion (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Barring yourself, all other participants seemed to largely share the view articulated by User:Debresser that the category was "...an indiscriminate collection of everything that has in whatever way to do with analysis". This is categorisation by an incidental feature (the presence of the term 'analysis') and is generally regarded as a form of overcategorisation. Both reasoned consensus and weight of numbers seemed to be against you in this debate I'm afraid. --Xdamr^talk 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked Debresser to look at my rationale User_talk:Debresser#Category:Analysis. "Agree with the definition. And with most of the articles in the category." was the comment for it, I didnt ask Charvest and AllyD for a reaction of the given rationale, thats a fault on my side, sorry Mion (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr, looking down the page i thought it was better to wait a week, still, could you please re evaluate the closure ? thanks Mion (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what I think will be best is to start a fresh Cfd. After having taken another look at things, the question does seem a little more finely balanced than it appeared at first sight. The category was processed and deleted on 23/11; if the consensus is to delete then that will merely mean continuation of the status quo, but if the decision is to keep then there will be no bar to re-creation and re-population. I've found a cached version of the category's contents at [1], so, despite its deletion contributors will be able to get some idea of the use it was being put to. How does that sound to you?

Xdamr^talk 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, thanks Mion (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Now listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 28#Category:Analysis. --Xdamr^talk 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

T&T

Hi, for this, what about the two music categories? That proposed change I think was uncontroversial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod - looks like I overlooked them in all the hubbub and excitement. Closure amended. --Xdamr^talk 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Henry Wells (Australian Army officer)

Hello. I really wish you would have discussed this move on the talkpage first, as consensus is split in regards to a disambiguator of "(general)" or "(<service> officer)", and the majority of Australian-related articles on generals that require a disambig due use the former rather than latter. I am going to move the article back as I believe it is a better name for the article, but is also consistent with the other Australian articles and all links currently point to the former name which is well known. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It has been brought to my attention that you have, basically, moved every article using "(general)" as a disambiguator. May I ask what compelled you to do this, was there a discussion I missed or some such? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of Eric Brown (pilot) to Eric Brown (Royal Navy officer)

Undiscussed, pointless, reverted. Non-notable as a naval officer, highly notable as a pilot. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you didn't check for double redirects Eric "Winkle" Brown & Eric Brown (British test pilot) created by this move. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Move of War cross with sword to War Cross (Norway)

Hi there. How come you moved War Cross with sword to War Cross (Norway)? According to the Norwegian Royal House War Cross with swords is the official English name of the decoration. And you didn't even discuss the move first. Manxruler (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at Erik Gjems-Onstad's 1995 book "Krigskorset og St. Olavsmedaljen med ekegren" (I'm pretty sure that link can't be accessed outside of Norway) I agree with the move. The name in Norwegian is Krigskorset, i.e. the War Cross. Apparently the sword wasn't automatically included in the early days. Władysław Sikorski, for example, got the cross in 1943, without a sword. Manxruler (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Distinguished Service Order

Are you going to fix all the links that now go to a disambiguation page after that undiscussed move? You seem to be reading the disambiguation guidelines rather uncritically, and the project ones seem to overlook the idea of a primary topic that it part of the Wikipedia wide naming conventions. In an English language encyclopaedia, the vast majority of links are gong to be the British/Commonwealth decoration. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now requested that Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom) goes back to Distinguished Service Order, and that goes to Distinguished Service Order (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. David Underdown (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Intent was to fix the links, yes. The general practice in this area has been to disambiguate and to avoid the systematic bias caused by the whole question of what is or is not the primary definition. I concede that a question does arise when there are a significant number of links to one article over the others, but I don't think that this negates the aim of not unduly biasing ourselves to one over the other.

Xdamr^talk 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, no-one else seems to agree that it was a good move int he first place (and it has now been reverted). If you can get consensus for it, perhaps a better approach would be to create a redirect from DSO (UK) to DSO initially, fix everything that currently points to DSO by pointing it to DSO (UK) first (and maybe the odd one to the actual intended target if they weren't right), and then do the move, rather than leaving hundreds of links broken with no indication that you realise that there is a problem? David Underdown (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing Australian generals into officers

FYI:
I think this is a contentious change, and that you should have canvassed discussion of the matter before unilaterally making the change.
(My preference would be that you restored the situation to the status quo, and then open a discussion.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

OMG!! (Move log); 10:26 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Nigel Coates (admiral) to Talk:Nigel Coates (RAN officer) (Move log); 10:26 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Nigel Coates (admiral) to Nigel Coates (RAN officer) (diff) (hist) . . John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer d.2006)‎; 10:22 . . (+19) . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) (fix link) [rollback] (Move log); 10:21 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer) to John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer d.2006) (Move log); 10:21 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer) to Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer d.2006) (Move log); 10:10 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Michael Slater (general) to Talk:Michael Slater (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:10 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Michael Slater (general) to Michael Slater (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:09 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved John Murray (general) to John Murray (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:09 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Murray (general) to Talk:John Murray (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:09 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved John Meredith (general) to John Meredith (Australian Army officer) over redirect (Move log); 10:09 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Meredith (general) to Talk:John Meredith (Australian Army officer) over redirect (Move log); 10:08 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Mark Evans (general) to Talk:Mark Evans (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:08 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Mark Evans (general) to Mark Evans (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:07 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Gordon Bennett (general) to Gordon Bennett (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:07 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Gordon Bennett (general) to Talk:Gordon Bennett (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:07 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved John Baker (general) to John Baker (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:07 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Baker (general) to Talk:John Baker (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:06 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (1914–2006) to Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:06 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved John Raymond Broadbent (1914–2006) to John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer) (Move log); 10:06 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:Robert Anderson (Australian general) to Talk:Robert Anderson (Australian Army officer) over redirect (Move log); 10:06 . . Xdamr (Talk | contribs) moved Robert Anderson (Australian general) to Robert Anderson (Australian Army officer) over redirect

Didn't it occur to you that it might be like it is (was) for a reason?

Didn't it occur to you that there may be a concensus, and that your changes were contrary to it?

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just scanned your talk page. There seems to be a common theme - viz: You are unilaterally making changes without any consideration of anything other than your own preferences. Do you think such behaviour is appropriate? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens! You're an admin!! As an admin, your behaviour is inappropriate.
I suggest you revert all the undiscussed changes you have made, because only an admin can undo your changes. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

zOMG! Drama! Seriously this isn't that immense a thing. I noticed a number of inconsistent disambiguations and thought standardisation, per the general example of (amongst others) RN, RAF, British Army etc disambiguations was a bit better. Like it? Great. Don't like it? Change it back. It really doesn't take anything more than that. It wasn't as if the articles were deleted - that really would be cause for drama - they are still on wp, just as they were content-wise.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Seriously", as an admin, your behaviour is inappropriate. No, the moves themselves "isn't that immense a thing". However, what is relevant, and significant, are the two facts:
1) You are unilaterally making changes without any consideration of anything other than your own preferences.
2) You are an admin.
"I noticed a number of inconsistent disambiguations" - There is (was) NO inconsistency. ALL of the Australian ones are (were) consistent with each other.
"per the general example" - That is, in fact, a VERY "non-general" example. (i.e. it is a very specific and non-representative subset. If you feel the need, I can find you half-a-dozen other subsets to provide opposite "general" examples. Just ask. Which reminds me of an old joke: "Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in the river of average depth 2 inches?")
"Like it? Great. Don't like it? Change it back." - That's not the point. You are an admin.
"It really doesn't take anything more than that." - Not so. There are some pages which only an admin can "rename".
"It wasn't as if the articles were deleted ... " - Also not the point.

Please review your "moves", and restore the ones which I have not been able to restore because I am not an admin.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem with inconsistency anyway? To quote some past essay-ish comment when a similar situation arose with a bulk move of "... (car)" to "... (automobile)" a couple of months back:

"Uniformity is good"

I'd actually put it the other way: an enforced uniformity is generally a bad thing, placing arbitrary "uniform" names over those that had already emerged by evolution through policy and consensus. Uniform policies on new names are good, as is a clear understanding of best practice in choosing names for new articles (and let's not underestimate the complexity of this). Once names have emerged, some may require individual improvement, as necessary.

The "one-size fits all" approach in globally renaming though is almost never right. Why would it be? What's the advantage to be gained by consistency? We use categorization for grouping, not pattern matches over the names. The ways in which we use names don't require us to enforce consistency, so why should we?

Article names are independent of other articles. Our policies and guidelines exist to get the best names onto each article, not to make them match. If "foo (automobile)" is a better name than "foo (car)", then the article would rename itself to that naturally, no matter what the nearby articles were called. I'm happy enough with steam automobile rather than steam car because my understanding is that most of these were from the auto-naming country, not the car-naming country - even though I've personally always called them steam cars myself. Conversely kit cars - kit automobile is the worst sort of wiki-generated neologism (and we surely do an awful lot of that, especially for categorization at Commons).

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, FWIW I'm inclined to think that Xdamr got this right. There is a widespread convention to disambiguate biographical articles by occupation, rather than by a particular post they have held. It's not always observed, but in general it's a useful principle, because it produces more stable disambiguators. (see for example the usage at Category:British Army generals).

Also, while you're quite entitled to disagree with anyone, I think that a little calm would help the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there BHG! I have a number of responses.

1) "General" is an occupation; it is a quite different job from "Officer". It is not just "a particular post they have held".

2) I can't remember the detail, but MoS says something like "call them what they were known for". These people are/were NOT notable because they were "officers"; they are notable because they were "generals".

3) As I've already said, "British Army Generals" is a VERY non-representative subset, so please find another and more useful example to quote.

"I think that a little calm would help the discussion." - What is not calm about my second and subsequent responses? Please explain.

"I'm inclined to think that Xdamr got this right." - Got what right? Please explain.

And you, too, seem to be ignoring the fact that the behaviour is inappropriate for an admin.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This usage is not confined to the British Generals category. As I noted above, it is the widespread convention for British Army/RN/RAF personnel, fairly widespread in the US categories (though I can't speak to it being an absolute convention there), and certainly prevalent amongst the non-General Australian categories. Given that you've asked, in my view you do seem a little heated in this discussion. There's no reason we can't discuss good faith edits in a calm, friendly, and collegiate fashion, is there?

Xdamr^talk 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"This usage is not confined to the British Generals category" - Agreed - that's the example BHG used - I was trying to be relevant to her statement.

"it is the widespread convention for British Army/RN/RAF personnel" - Weeelllll. I think "widespread convention for British" is a bit of an oxymoron. "convention for British" is more accurate and less ambiguous.

"fairly widespread in the US categories" - Again, "widespread" is ill-defined and ambiguous. Yes, there is some use of it in some US categories. Perhaps "widespread and thinly used"?

"and certainly prevalent amongst the non-General Australian categories." - I don't understand the relevance. We are talking about Australian Generals (and, it would seem, Admirals).

"in my view you do seem a little heated in this discussion" - Hmm. Interesting. (Unintended side-effect?)

"There's no reason we can't discuss good faith edits in a calm, friendly, and collegiate fashion, is there?" - No reason that I'm aware of.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What did your last slave die of?

"Like it? Great. Don't like it? Change it back." - You have unilaterally made dozens of these undiscussed changes. Why should I (or anyone else for that matter) be required to clean up your messes? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Overwork. --Xdamr^talk 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol! (I deserved that.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile: Please review your "moves", and restore the ones which I have not been able to restore because I am not an admin.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, in the interests of general good harmony between nations I will move back all Australian Generals' articles, in deference to the local convention which applies to this category. I don't think this negates the fact that standardising disambiguators is a Good Thing, and that as a general principle disambiguating biographical articles by occupation, rather than by a particular post held at one point is a better approach.

Xdamr^talk 14:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ok then, in the interests of general good harmony between nations I will move back all Australian Generals' articles" - Thank you. (I've already done most of them; there are only a few that require admin rights.)

"I don't think this negates the fact that standardising disambiguators is a Good Thing" - As a blanket policy, I do NOT agree that "standardising disambiguators is a Good Thing", and I don't think that policy is consistent with the MoS. (Please re-read what I wrote to BHG above.)

"and that as a general principle disambiguating biographical articles by occupation, rather than by a particular post held at one point is a better approach." - Maybe. Except, in this case:

1) As already explained above, "General" IS an occupation, not just "a particular post held at one point".

2) "General" is not just "a particular post held at one point"; the appointment is held until death.

(It seems to me that what you seem to be trying to achieve is MUCH better achieved by the use of categories ... )

Please note, however, that I'm interested to read supporting and/or opposing arguments. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed a couple

Please restore:

• John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer d.1972) to John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972)
• John Raymond Broadbent (Australian Army officer d.2006) to John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006)
• Associated redirects, disambigs, etc. to John Raymond Broadbent (1893-1972) or John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006) as appropriate.

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I find I've been able to do John Raymond Broadbent (1893–1972), but not the other. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Xdamr^talk 13:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CFD 2009 November 16

Hi Xdamr

A small point of pedantry here.

Thanks for closing the CFD on Category:Government in Leeds, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 16#Category:Government_in_Leeds. It's good to see the backlog clearing!

Just one small thing. Your closure notice said the the result was "Rename Category:Government in Leeds to Category:Local government of Leeds"

Howver, the move you actually listed at WP:CFD/W was Category:Government in Leeds to Category:Local government in Leeds ... which is what is what I took to be the consensus of the discussion.

Just so that the record is clear to anyone looking a this again in the future, I wondered if you would take a moment to amend he closure notice, changing Category:Local government of Leeds to Category:Local government in Leeds. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Of course, no problem at all - I'm very keen on maintaining the integrity of the archive for the benefit of our future generations... Heh.

Good to see you around Cfd again, --Xdamr^talk 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Generations as yet unborn will revere your archival dilgence. ;-)

Thanks too for the welcome back. I think I'll put a bit more energy into CFD, seeing as I'm likely to be back on wikipedia a bit over the winter. Am I right in thinking more closers are needed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, yes. Feel free to pitch right in with closing some of these debates. We have one or two regular closers here at the moment - a few days absence by one or other means the work backs up horrendously. An extra closer would also have the added benefit of calming down a vocal clique of editors we have around here who seem to believe Cfd is presently run by a monstrous Cabal, !supervoting with reckless abandon and drinking the Blood of Their Young as they perform weird rites in order to keep Cfd under their control (Fact). So really, everyone would be a winner :)

Xdamr^talk 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, will do.

BTW, I don't mix sacred rites with drinking the Blood of The Young. I'm a social drinker, and my drinking of their blood is purely a social activity, devoid of ritual significance. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just not good enough ... without the ritual blood drinking Cydebot freezes up and I lose my mojo. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Auto car racing controversies

Hi Xdamr. Thanks for speedying that rename. I realised it was probably speediable after I had nominated it at CfD, but I couldn't be bothered delisting it from CfD and relisting at WP:SPEEDY (I was fairly confident it would pass CfD and I wasn't too fussed about whether it took 2 days or 7 for the rename to occur). Plus I was hopeful that a friendly admin might come along and recognise its speediability, as you did. Thanks again. DH85868993 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In idle moments I tend to trawl the Cfd nominations for this sort of thing - sad, I know... Most of the time, what is speediable usually ends up speedied, even if it has been put to a full nomination. --Xdamr^talk 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Naval General Service Medal

Hi Xdamr, I take your point, but you threw out many babies with the bath water. There are ways of keeping the links while not changing the names of the clasps, and I believe the links add value in that they enable people to find the actions specified. Also, I added in at least one new clasp. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem with you adding links - though unless the articles on the ships are to follow soon, I don't really see adding a lot of red to the page as a huge baby! Two points I've noticed. Firstly the 'Thistle' clasp - the date was expressed as 'Feby'. I checked each of these against sources - idiosyncratic I know, but that was 1847 English for you. Secondly re. the 'Telegraph' clasp. This clearly could not have been HMS Telegraph from 1812, given the action took place in 1799.

Xdamr^talk 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xdamr, I've tracked Telegraph down to a hired brig, launched in 1798 and presumed lost at sea in 1801. I am not too worried about red links. They'll get filled in over time. In fact, if people start to write the articles and then click "What links here" that may alert them to an action and ultimately lead them to doing a back link to the NGSM. Lastly, you'll notice I have converted the Battles section to a table. I would like to do the same with Ship Actions and Boat Service, but have not come up with the column titles yet. Any preferences? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Close Cfd

If it is still open by the time you read this, perhaps you could close the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Categories_for_discussion? Debresser (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. We had a bit of backlog starting to build up there, best to knock that sort of thing on the head before it gets too large. --Xdamr^talk 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)