User talk:DexDor/Archive 2018

Template:Content category has been nominated for merging with Template:Category explanation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After closure of this discussion, you might want to nominate Category:Places on the Road of St James and subcats as well, for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - noted. DexDor ^(talk) 14:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer re Category:Lizards of South Africa, where I had somehow negleceted to process the dual upmerge after closing WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 3#Category:Lizards_of_South_Africa.

Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DexDor. I see you deleted my addition to the RWF page. I'd love to know what I did wrong, so that I don't do it again. Thanks. --Bernard33 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bernard33. Every item on a dab page has to have a blue link - see WP:DDD etc. Please also see how other items are written (e.g. no fullstops). DexDor ^(talk) 07:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Many thanks for teaching me.--Bernard33 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S/he got blocked, for repeated incivility.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my categorizations within WP:Disambiguation pages, until consensus is reached. I have put in a request at WP:Village pump (policy)#Allow some categorization in disambiguation pages (or within redirects to them) and welcome your comments therein. Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dpleibovitz, no - it is you who should follow Wikipedia rules and stop wasting the time of other editors (and readers, e.g. by making categories less useful). In particular, please try to get it into your head that in Wikipedia Category X is (in simple terms) a set/list of Wikipedia articles about X; if you want a complete list of Xs then create a list. If you can't understand/accept this then please move on to something else. DexDor ^(talk) 08:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join a discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Choice of images. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please take up these discussions somewhere where relevant editors can see them? In this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, or its parents.

I do oppose these mergers. Country-specific organism categories may not satisfy WP:Defining, but they have great practical value because they allow easy overviews of species per country. Standard response to this is that "List of XXX of countryX" should do this, and this indeed would be the ideal solution for the "ready" Wikipedia. However, based on my experience with amphibians and some other animal groups, (1) these country list articles are often missing, (2) when they exist, they are often severely outdated, (3) with the current numbers of suitably active editors, they are likely to stay outdated for the foreseeable future, and (4) new lists will soon require maintenance (which they are unlikely to receive), given that taxonomy of many groups is still quite fluid. Therefore, I would like ask you to set formalism a bit aside and recognize the value of these somewhat unorthodox categories. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Micromesistius, Discussions about merging etc of categories are usually at CFD (as that's where the discussion needs to be if the result is to be actioned). Wikiprojects that have tagged a category are alerted if it is being discussed at CFD (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Article_alerts) and you can, of course, watchlist a category page. Sometimes I also notify wikiprojects on their talk page, but the response rate is very low. DexDor ^(talk) 17:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post here. Just wondering what you thought about this similar category. Coldcreation (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Coldcreation (although you need to be careful about WP:CANVASS) - I'll take a look. DexDor ^(talk) 17:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DexDor. Just following up on the discussion on the talk page of Couiros22. After some initial reluctance to respond to others, it looks like he has resolved the MOS problems that some of us were objecting to, but there was a similar discussion you were having with him about his modification of categories of fish articles. He responded to your most recent notes, and I wondered if you are satisfied and whether the incident report on ANI can be closed as resolved, or whether or not there is still a problem or not? Please comment if you have a chance. Neil916 (Talk) 16:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:@Nick Thorne: also pinging the other editors who were actively engaged in this discussion. Neil916 (Talk) 16:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil916, Imo there is an ongoing problem with c22. I think action is needed to try to persuade c22 to be more collaborative/collegiate (and, quite frankly, sensible) or to stop editing.  Some examples of their editing:

• c22 created vagrant-birds categories.  These were deleted by this CFD (that CFD contains lots of relevant comments) in which experienced editors (both birders and categorizers) said that wintering-birds categories should not be created. The cfd closed as delete (not rename), but 2 days later C22 (without afaics any wikiproject etc discussion in favour of such categories) created Category:Wintering birds of Africa etc.

At the time I was looking for an ideal term to designate the seasonal non-breeding ranges of birds (wintering and/or summering ranges grouped under one single category), hence the "vagrant birds of" ; however when this causes disruption I considered that "wintering birds of" was a satisfactory alternative.

• C22 created categories such as mammals-of-libya that had previously been deleted (again without afaics any discussion to overturn the 1st deletion). 2nd CFD.

This category would have included mammals distinctively present in Lybia (not entirely present throughout North Africa) and would have been one of many under the Mammals by country cat.

• Attempts to get C22 to explain their edits are generally met with dismissive replies (e.g. "I've clarifed this enough already") rather than referring to a guideline or a discussion at a WikiProject.

I provide explanations when appropriate.

• C22 is currently concentrating on fish categorization and, as usual, making a right mess of it and (even whilst at ANI) not explaining (e.g. in edit summaries) what they are doing and why.  For example in this edit they remove the Fish-of-Australia category (whilst at the same time adding an EL titled "Fishes of Australia").  Here they (repeatedly) put a marine fauna (i.e. not just fish) category under a fish category (that edit also clearly breaks the SUBCAT rule). It's possible they are trying to rearrange wp categorization to avoid using terms such as "fish" which they may consider to be incorrect (see Paraphyly), but there is no consensus to make such a change.

For info: C22 is, imo, probably the same person as blocked editors User:R567 and Wwikix User:Nono64 / User:NotWith. DexDor ^(talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Corrected (I had muddled Caftaric / C22). DexDor ^(talk) 16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- The website has a map clearly showing the localized range of presence of many fish species and its title has nothing to do with the naming of categories on Wikipedia.

- Initially I had no idea the category would eventually contain just fish in the absence of other marine fauna, nor that (ini the presence of the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category) there would have to be a sister subcategory entitled "Marine fish of Australia" to "Fish of Australia" - nevertheless it's no alarming matter and perhaps we could just *automatically?* change the title "marine fauna" to "marine fish" ? --Couiros22 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that he has just shifted his attention solely to categories but is otherwise continuing along in the same manner, not explaining and not listening to other editors. It seems pretty obvious to me that C22 is either unable or unwilling to collaborate with others on Wikipedia and although I am reasonable sure he is acting in good faith in his own mind, he seems oblivious to the disruption he is causing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that since they started editing in July 2013 C22 has made in excess of 18,000 mainspace edits. In the same period they have made only 149 edits to various talk page spaces. Since the beginning of April this year they have made 2,995 edits, with barely a handful of edit summaries. This editor does not engage with other editors. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick. For info: Most of those 149 talk page edits are in UT. There's only 10 in CT (like similar editors C22 doesn't add wikiproject tags when creating new categories) and only 8 in WT (here - where the wikiproject didn't support C22's ideas). DexDor ^(talk) 07:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "category intersection tools" on a sub page of yours. What are "category intersection tools" and is there a place I can use them? Unsigned comment by User:Tahc

Hi Tahc, User:DexDor/FM contains some links to a category intersection tool. There's probably also more info about such tools somewhere - I'll have a look. DexDor ^(talk) 05:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haupt (German word) 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/Haupt (German word) 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. eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Haupt (German word) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Dictionary entry.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DexDor,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Insertcleverphrasehere, sorry but I only have limited time on wp at the moment and have plenty of things on my to-do list already. Best wishes, DexDor ^(talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy editing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Places on the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to understand the issue better than me, could you please cleanup the whole [:category:Epomyms]], since IMO it has several similarly overcated entries, such as 'Wellerism'. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DexDor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really have started to do the groundwork for the major overhaul that is needed. User:DexDor/Categorization of species by geography is very impressive. Should this comment be moved to its talk page, I wonder?

Starting at the top, I'd like to see a sharp definition of the geographical continents used for animals, especially Oceania. We have discussed this (can't remember where now) but with no consensus. The sensible biogeographical boundary for Oceania is the Wallace Line in my view, but this runs into many editors' insistence on using political categories, since "Biota/Fauna/etc. of Indonesia" then doesn't fit into the hierarchy. The alternative is to use just Australia + New Zealand + the Pacific. But then some editors want "Biota/Fauna/etc. of the United States" where this is the political unit including Hawaii. If we had an RfC on fauna continents and reached a consensus, we could go forward.

For plants, the WGSRPD works well, especially because the up-to-date Plants of the World Online uses it as well as many other plant databases and sources. But for historic reasons, the category names are confusing, e.g. Category:Flora of North America isn't "North America" but "Northern America" which is significantly different. Again we have tried discussing this, but with no consensus on the way forward. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I've copied the above comment to User talk:DexDor/Categorization of species by geography. DexDor ^(talk) 06:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggested to change a scope of categories, introduced by you - [1]. Regards. Pibwl ←« 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]