Qetuth

You recently added the Category:University of Melbourne alumni to Kevin Robert Elz. Was that a mistake and you meant to add Category:University of Melbourne faculty? Or do you have any information, preferrable a citable source, that says kre studied at MU? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was using the #1 reference on the kre page, which states 2 degrees from MU as his education. Although admittedly it is his own CV, so not an ideal source. I didn't add the ref tag there because I am a little iffy still about how to have multiple sections on the same page refer to the same reference. Incidentally, are Uni Faculty categories only meant to include current staff, or past staff also? -- Qetuth (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I saw the unreferenced mention of working at MU, checked the existing references for mention of this, and on those found no mention of the fellowship, but that he was apparently educated there. -- Qetuth (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

My mistake; I should have read the CV on the Thai (PSU) web site. Sorry for causing extra work (and thanks for the additional references). As for faculty: I think that category applies to all staff, former or dead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite alright, I might not have actually done the extra work without a little push, and I learnt from it. Incidentally, the article still doesn't actually mention his schooling save the category link, but rewriting the intro is beyond my scope. -- Qetuth (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given that this discussion closed the way you proposed it should, can you make the category into a list?--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done. Should I remove the category from the electorates (happy to do so) or is that Bot-done or otherwise processed? --Qetuth (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

		The Pornography Barnstar
		For helping to sort out the porn actor articles and put them into the proper subcategories. Asarelah (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cut and paste this award onto your talk page so everyone can see how cool you are! ^_^ Asarelah (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain why you deleted the entire page relating to Karuneegar?

Actually, after checking, that was User:Qwyrxian, who has edited the page frequently in the past - I was just sorting the contents of Category:India stubs into appropriate sub-categories. -Qetuth (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Karuneegar to discuss further. --Qetuth (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, must have copied the wrong draft over. Waacstats (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, We seem to be just about the only people sorting stubs these days. I do have some doubts as to whether the whole stub structure is stil useful, but I just carry on sorting them for now: I enjoy the challenge of finding a stub tag that fits. I keep the "P" section of the A-Z list empty, and pick up others which have some interesting characteristic, especially those with disambiguations where I check that they've got the necessary incoming link from a dab page or hatnote. Ladybug (anime) was a nice example of what can happen: I looked at it to follow up the incoming link, found that even the stub tag had disappeared, replaced it and left a message for the editor who removed it ... and then got distracted onto something else and forgot either to stub-sort it (which you did) or to add it to a dab page (which I've just done!). It would be good if there were a few more people sorting stubs, as some of the unsorted have been around for quite a while now! PamD 07:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, others seem to come and go, but I've noticed it's been a bit fuller lately - I just thought it was the addition of more easy ways for people to add stub tags (Page curation being the latest I think). I love sorting things, but am a bit easily distracted - I'll sort some stubs, then notice something wrong with a navbox on one of them and start fixing the contents of that category, and so on. As a result the attention I give a page varies wildly. Sometimes I'll do nothing but say "oh, that's a german footy team, add {{germany-footyclub-stub}} and move on". Other times I end up rewriting half the article, and half the ones it links to. Ladybug (anime) fell into the former category.

On the topic of the stub structure - Long term I think the goal should perhaps be for it to be absorbed into the project system, but I don't think we're there yet - Wikiproject Foo stub-class articles categories are neither kept as up to date nor are small enough to be as useful to editors, and there are so many dormant projects. --Qetuth (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you going around adding spaces to the sort keys of stub categories?

Spaces are only supposed to be used at the start of a sort key if it's a special page that needs to be distinguished from the main listing (such as the category's topic article), but you're doing it to every page in the categories. All that does is break part of the categorization system (grouping by initial letter), to no benefit I can see, and with no mandate that I'm aware of. — Paul A (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Most stub categories already use spaces and stars for sub-stub-category sortkeys and have for many years. Generally this is so that two different types of subcat are each sorted alphabetically among themselves (eg see Category:American people stubs). There are only a relatively small number of categories which did not use either, more common was that one single subcat out of 5 or 6 did not have the leading space and hence did not sort properly with the others. There was also some inconsistentcy in which way around the symbols were used, (for example, the scientists tree had the opposite system to the majority. I have been trying to standardise everything to use the same pre-existing system, which turned out to be a lot bigger job than my initial survey implied (I thought it would be a couple of hundred cats at most). --Qetuth (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have closed this October 10 CfD as rename from Category:Australia broadcasting stubs to Category:Australia media stubs, and rescope.

May I leave it you do to do the necessary changes to the stub templates?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ditto with Category:Soviet rowing biography stubs, from CfD October 8. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll get right on it. --Qetuth (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Qetuth. That's great.

It would have taken me a bit of time to figure out how they all tied together, so it was a great help to have it done by someone who already knows the territory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Two more from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_22: Category:Mykolaiv Oblast geography stubs and Category:Turkish Paralympic medalist stubs. Hope it's OK for me to dump these on you, since you were not the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Plus 2 from the same page: Category:Azerbaijani Paralympic medalist stubs and Category:Polioptilidae stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done and done. --Qetuth (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. Please, be so kind and have a look at this proposal. Thank you! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. Sorry if I insist - could you once again take a glance at this proposal? thanks! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Hick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half back (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. Days ago I suggested the creation of some new stub categories related to Bible translation and Bible translators, please read it here. Comments welcome. Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. Hope you are doing fine. Please, be so kind an d take a look at this proposal to create a new Category:Latin stubs. Thank you! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding this edit you made at George Dewis (and I see you've made a number of similar amendments elsewhere), it is ascribing a nationality to a person when none is known i.e. all we know is that he was born in England not whether he was 'English nationality'. For the person data I believe we should just say 'Footballer' unless someone has represented a country. Regarding the decade stubs, the problem is that they infer nationality whereas the 'footy bio' stubs do not. I renamed a couple of the decade stubs and had a discussion with Waacstats on this point previously. See [1]. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my thinking has been that those stub tags do not necessarily imply nationality, and just sorting them into subcategories - The changed wording when moving into position tags (the decades just add a clause onto those) could be a problem, but the phrase "English football forward" is a bit ambiguous in that sense. This seemed reasonable as the idea of a stub tag, as opposed to regular categories is not to categorise people, but to group them for interested editors, so if all we know about someone is that they played English football, that is the obvious place to stub-sort them. I certainly don't have a problem with the alternate wording you mention, although I notice it has been reverted for consistency on one of the pages linked. I would be happy to go through and change all of those if there is consensus for that wording.

In most cases I think I only changed the country in persondata when a person was in Cat:English footballers, but in this case (and probably some others), I saw country of birth and location of junior club and jumped the gun. I will make sure not to do that in future. You are probably right that it is unnecessary even when correct, although I do wish I had a better idea what persondata is actually used for. --Qetuth (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responses. On stubs, the wording is implying nationality, even though I take the point that they are just for stub sorting purposes. I presume your reference to reverting relates to the 1890s stub that I picked up, although yes that will be a possible problem if not all the stub categories have the same text. The wider issue is what is the reason for all these stubs and sub-classes existing. Going forward, do you plan to make any changes in the way you do stub sorting?

On person data I note you say you will not add a nationality in future (unless confirmed), although this is obviously a lesser issue as it is hidden. However, it is the kind of thing that could be taken on by bots etc, and is there a chance that any entries that only say 'Footballer' will get a nationality added? I'm not really clear what person data is for - some kind of automatic reader. Eldumpo (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The stub classes exist because (I guess here, I wasn't involved in their creation), it was the obvious (or easy) way to break down a category which was way too large and still growing - English footballer stubs have well over 5000 articles, and the 3 positions split by decade over 1500 each, when the consensus at WSS for a category being too large is 800. I believe American Football did this first and the "it worked over there" argument was used, by the look. Personally, I'm not sure by position is the best first level split that could have been used, as the first level should really be concentrating on a split by interest to allow editors interested in a topic to find short articles to work on. I imagine more editors would be interested in editing players from say a given era, not players from a given position, but figuring out exactly how to divide by era is complicated and prone to later renegotiation. By team would just be messy, unfortunately.

I have encountered some badly bot-edited persondata, but only concerning the dates - usually not sticking to the articles existing date formatting, or copying date typos in from an infobox. Lots of articles have persondata with nothing but a bot-copied year/death of birth from the categories, which I try to expand with full dates if present, as well as fill in name, shortdesc, place of birth. Most bot activity doesn't seem to mess with text fields, as they really do sometimes rquire thought, except for article creation scripts (eg importing from another encyclopedia which has a convenient short summary field). Bots certainly shouldn't be using stub categories to justify alteration of existing shortdescs, if that is your concern, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was a bot somewhere doing things like searching the main Category:English footballers for blank shortdescs to fill in. --Qetuth (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate there is a process behind the stub sorting, and wasn't specifically aware about the 800 figure, although I wonder how many people actually use the categories in order to pick an article to improve. Anyway, my main issue was more focused on the nationality, and I just wonder if my thoughts have made you consider not changing from the 'footy bio' stubs if nationality is not known, and more specifically, if you do some more of this sorting in say 6 months time, is it possible you would change back some of the stub categories that I might've subsequently changed? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will refrain from doing so, having now encountered this issue, but since the point is that the positional cats have been made to subdivide 'English footballers', the scope is clearly intended to be the same and it is a logical action for any editor to take. Asking a specific editor to rethink will not be as good a solution as fixing the positional stub tag wording across the board.

{{England-footy-defender-1890s-stub}} text "biographical article related to English association football, referring to a defender born in the 1890s" is good in itself but I think sounds a bit awkward without the decade. Perhaps something like "English association football related article about a defender"? Anything of the form "This __ article __ is a stub" can be done by the template. I notice when looking around for inspiration for this that of course the current wording was taken from American football, where the stubs are not separated by country at all. --Qetuth (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's been some response to your post at Footy. Do you feel you have consensus to make the changes? Eldumpo (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see you've introduced the amended stub wording on a number of categories now. Good work. Eldumpo (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Theres still quite a few to go, but I'll just chip away at them over the next week or two. --Qetuth (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. Hope you are doing fine. I have just made this proposal: a stub category for philatelists. What do you say? Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Qetuth, thanks for letting me know about that screwup, I replied on my talk page. I think I've fixed it now, definitely let me know if there's anything I missed. I appreciate your kindness and thoughtfulness in how you approached me about it! Peace, delldot ∇. 15:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Qetuth. I am working on stub sorting and I have placed a proposal related to Eastern Catholicism. Would you be so kind and write your opinion on it here? Thank you! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Current national leaders for undeletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6#Category:Current national leaders you may be interested in taking part. Ryan Vesey 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment on the talk page - the automated processes all seem to use {{stub}}, and the majority of {{Stub}} come from just one editor who won't explain why he prefers to do it that way and won't change his ways. It was pointed out that the template documentation appears to tell people to use the capital S, so I proposed changing it and was met with great hostility. PamD 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Missing Wikipedians.--Malerooster (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

In my country (Indonesia, and so other country in east Asia), known enough about this metastatis disease as LMD, abbrevation of Leptomeningeal Disease. There so many stories taking the disease as important element. So, if anyone of these reader want to find out more about LMD and curious about it, they will find nothing in wikipedia untill they know that the other name of LMD is Leptomeningeal Cancer as written for the disease title page in wikipedia. I just want to ask a advice; should we add this (I mean; the disease name "LMD") to the page? So, other people will find it easily while looking for it at wikipedia. Thank for the respond Hatrack98 (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) @Hatrack98: I've fixed this: a mention in the lead sentence of Leptomeningeal cancer, a redirect from Leptomeningeal disease and a dab page entry at LMD. Found that even the synonyms listed in the lead sentence didn't have redirects ... and then found that two of them have separate articles! A bit of clearing up needed. And such is the time-sink of editing Wikipedia. Happy Editing, both of you. PamD 08:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

See now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Leptomeningeal cancer, Neoplastic meningitis and Meningeal carcinomatosis! PamD 08:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply