Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 22 June 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Obiwankenobi}} on your page in case you have missed my response. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Hello! Welcome to Misplaced Pages!. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

By popular demand...

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_2#Law_review_people

Navigation

Blergh. Removing the category does make some of these difficult to find, and it's certainly a central characteristic of many of them. But I',m not sure how one would handle the category if it allowed inclusion; how antisemitic (or homophobic, etc.) does one have to be to merit inclusion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem. I wasn't part of those discussions, but would have voted the same way. Let the article discuss in detail their views, or create lists, but categories are just not the solution here. It's a bit easier on the other side, e.g. if someone has actively espoused a view and agrees with it, but many of these cats, like racism, anti-semitism, etc are negative labels as opposed to positive affirmations of an individual's POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

what you think?

what you think is not always going to be what carries the day. You have a very (opinion) high handed manner, at least in your talk page edits. I feel that a ADMIN warning IS an ADMIN action, so as such needs to remain on the page. it is not your roll to decide when a discussion is irrelevant or has gone on too far. This sort of unilateral editing is at the root of some of the problems that this particular article has been plagued by. That, and of course my carping. I have no plans to revert my edit. If you wish to end a discussion say so there and see what the others involved feel about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 22 May 2013‎

Two separate people asked you to desist that line of discussion, you haven't, I tried to BOLDLY close it off, you reverted... you will do what you like, I asked you to re-hat, you didn't want to. I don't want to argue this endlessly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on Obi, look on the bright side, this way should an admin say something I could not deny being warned. When an editor that I respect asks me to back off I typically will. I don't remember that happening. However I do respect the Killer so will cease and desist as requested. I have been told that I edit with my emotions. One of the major observations about men is that they are not in touch with any of their emotions except perhaps anger, and even that is as often as not very appropriately expressed. it's so confusing? Carptrash (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't want to argue this endlessly. I also feel like you just said you don't respect me in a round-about way - but whatever, you reverted, I'm not going to dispute it, lets let sleeping dogs lie. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American films now needs purging

The CFD for Category:African-American films has (finally) been closed by me. As discussed, the category needs "purging". Because you participated in the discussion, I am notifying you in case you would like to participate in purging the category. I am not expecting that you do this or suggesting that it is your job; my comment here is simply a notification so you are aware of the situation. Thanks. Good Ol’factory 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Clark Young's "Works"

I've commented on the talk page of "Robert Clark Young" about the exhaustive "Works" section that you've added. I don't wish to revert your edit myself (as I've decided not to touch that entry), but you might want to look at my remarks. NaymanNoland 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks - trust me it's far from exhaustive, look in the history. I checked a number of other bios, even for lesser known authors, Misplaced Pages seems pretty open to having quite long lists. While I appreciate that you're staying away from editing it, you should nonetheless consider that your views on this may not be neutral. I personally believe that his bio and it's contents should have nothing to do with behavior of qworty. Otherwise, we've sunk to his level. As you can see the article is filling up with (sourced) drama, so that will remain his legacy here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No question that I ain't neutral. Not sure anyone here really is. Restricting my comments to his talk page means that if my non-neutrality gets disruptive, I can be carefully dismissed. That said, I also checked out some other author bios - see the talk page. (My lack of neutrality is a useful counterbalance, I think, to excessive generosity mistaking itself for neutrality. I'm erring on the dark side, to make sure that we don't err on the saintly. In between is appropriate.) NaymanNoland 00:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about link to Qworty Cleanup

I'm probably just being dense, but the redirect from the various Qworty Cleanup threads in fact takes you to this confusing long list of things, none of them related to this issue. You then have to know to click on the "talk" tab, in order to get to the actual cleanup page, which where you want to be. Is that normal? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply redirect to the talk page itself? NaymanNoland (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

that long list of things is the list of all edits made by Qworty. The idea is, look at the edit, and if the edit itself was bad, then go to the article, fix it, and mark the edit bad. The talk page is to discuss the overall project. The redirect, in any case, is just a redirect from your userspace, I don't think many people will be using it. We could split "clean-up" into multiple parts, but they should all be on or linked from the "project" page, and the talk page should be used to discuss the project itself. Feel free to add more exposition at the top of the project page to explain and give context.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, holy... That's a serious list. I thought it pertained to every single cleanup project on Misplaced Pages, but it's just QWORTY??? So much for the notion that we've "addressed everything". Yikes. NaymanNoland (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

we'll see. I just did a couple - almost all of his edits have already been addressed by other editors shortly after he did them. His technique was rather scorched-earth, but I have a bit of respect for it as it got results - there would be articles tagged for refs for 2 years, with nothing. Then Qworty swings by, ices the whole article, and two days later, it is restored, with more refs. So he compelled people into action. And frankly, while brutal, the edits I've seen so far are technically within guidance, especially around BLPs - unsourced information can be deleted on sight (but I think that provision was intended for removal of defaming information, but Qworty stretched that to apply to all information). So don't see that whole list as a list of terror - much of is it ogre or dragon-like rather. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I've seen several articles where Qworty deleted whole bibliographies, properly constructed with ISBNs, publishers and publication dates as "unsourced". The same goes for discographies, filmographies, etc. I've also seen links deleted as "dead link" that weren't, proper sources deleted and the material that was cited deleted afterwords as "unsourced", and other incorrect editing. Also, in some cases a general tag at the top of a page dating back years that suggests the article could benefit from more inline citations was used as an excuse to delete huge chunks of the article, ALONG with proper citations that had been added during those years, with a comment like "three years is long enough to wait". Qworty did not bother to examine the content of other editors' work and sort out the solid editing from the questionable, or simple tag items that he felt needed a citation with "citation needed"; his purpose was not to improve articles, but to sabotage them. He also engaged in what he called "streamlining", which meant deleting all headings and making whatever he left of the article into a less readable block of text; sort of "anti-Wikifying". Rosencomet (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's also true, I've seen ones like that as well. I didn't see any deletion of discographies/bibliographies yet, but I have only done a few... he did use a rather large axe when doing this work...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

CFD now closed

This CFD has been closed. Splitting can proceed. I have added it to WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory 01:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ERGS rules

Am I reading ERGS rules right in assuming that all people in Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters should also be in Category:American hymnwriters or a non-religion specific sub-category thereof (which do not exist, there are no other sub-cats. I have to say that some of the arguments to keep this category really do seem to be "Latter-day Saint hymnwriters are not real hymnwriters, and we should not let them sit in the category for reald hymnwriters". Considering that William Clayton's "Come Come Ye Saints" is used in non-LDS worship, it is really off putting that people claim that Latter-day Saint written hymns are not used outside of Latter-day Saint worship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd read it that way too - some of the religion cats are trickier IMHO, but that one is simply "hymn writer" who is "Latter day saint", as such it should probably not be diffusing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for your help to edit

Hi Obiwankenobi: I saw your as a member of the Project Qworty effort.

I would like to invite you to come to the Erica Andrews article to give your thoughts and wisdom to what has gone on. I was one of the main editors of the article. I researched a lot about Andrews' life and career and placed most of the information on the page. One day in comes Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher. To cut a long story short, it became very ugly between me and them as Qworty, LGR were deleting information out of the article. They would claim there citation source was weak and even when I would prove to them that the information was factual through sources, it was never enough. The article became a hot battleground for them and me. It got ugly. Very ugly. I stepped away for a while as I really have no desire to fight on Misplaced Pages with anyone. Then I was very surprised to see Qworty being exposed for what he did and got banned. Shortly after that LGR got banned. So as part of Project Qworty, I returned to the Andrews article and replaced the information that they had deleted. However, now I'm running into yet the same arguments with Coffeepusher and Howicus. So I would really like to invite you to review my edits and what they've reverted back to. My edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erica_Andrews&oldid=557673661.

The Andrews talk page contains my comments on my replacement of content per Project Qworty. They have claimed the content I have placed back is contentious. I have asked just what part of actual career achievements is contentious? Andrews really did win her titles, really did act in 2 movies, really did perform on stage, really did appear in music videos, and really did host shows and performed. Nothing I have placed there is malicious lies. I have not made up anything. I will agree that sometimes the source is not from a mainstream outlet like NY Times, Washington Post but it does not mean the information is erroneous or is contentious or are lies to libel Andrews. I would NEVER do that to anyone living or dead. The information has weight and carries value for a reader who is seeking to learn more about Andrews in her bio. I hope you can chime in and make some sense. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, you may want to take a look at the findings of every single page Lightspeedx has taken this problem to. Dispute resolution page, Talk:Varifiability page, Talk:Videos page. Here is a link to the sockpuppet investigation . Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick correction, braveyoda wasn't Lightspeedx's sockpuppet, they were a MeatpuppetCoffeepusher (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, as you may see, I asked people how to cite a video/TV film credit. They said not to link to a YouTube if the said YouTube video is not uploaded by the copyright content holder. They suggested that I link using the actual TV footage credited to the original TV station/producer. I did that. I also added citation to Reuters, a printed book, etc for Andrews' titles. No matter how I try to cite or produce any online or print evidence to support the content, it is never enough. The reality is, it will never be enough because Coffeepusher, similar to Qworty and Little Green Rosetta prefers to delete as oppose to add. So, really, let's use some common sense here. Whether I asked in 50 or 5 forums, whether I am accuse of high crimes by anyone, let's parse it down to sheer common sense. Andrews won her titles, it is well-documented and is factual. Not lies. Not some fabricated crap that I made up. She also starred in 2 movies, acted in some stage plays and all of which are documented and are facts. She also appeared in music videos. 1 of which is mentioned in an LGBT publication. 2 of which her work isn't. Of these 2, one of which you can see her in it IF you know her and how she looks like. So I will agree with the advise of some people who have said that while I or any fans of her may know it is her, how can anyone else know? For that, well, unfortunately music videos don't publish a detail cast list (I've since learned that). So let's use common sense. Why are other entertainer bio pages full of mentions of their achievements without a need for miles of citations but yet Andrews' article is an anomaly where every one of her achievements seem to have to be verified by the Pope before it is allowed on a page? See the articles on Robert Wagner, Stefanie Powers, Cher as examples. Mr Wagner, Ms Powers, Ms Cher are very much alive and yet their bios have their filmography and professional achievements detailed out without citations. Those are some examples, there are many more. Why is the Andrews article picked apart? Coffeepusher has never been able to answer based on common sense. In fact, he does not even know who Andrews is nor researched or read up about her. He is merely here to continue Qworty and LGR's games by obstructing common sense edits. When I ask him for details as to why he objects, he resorts to ad hominem by bringing up meatpuppetry. I have never lied about that I may know some of the people who have edited the Andrews article. The key word here is "may". I cannot ascertain 100% if I know them personally unless they out themselves to me with their real names. Many people knew Ms Andrews in real life. She was very well traveled and was a very warm person who reached out to many people when she performed. Either they knew her or they knew friends of friends of hers. Please, let's use common sense here regarding the Andrews article. It's been so far lacking normality and common sense never existed in the Qworty and LGR world. Let's bring it back. Lightspeedx (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may want to take a look at WP:CANVASCoffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look, and added her to some categories. If you know of more categories she should be in, please add them. Lightspeedx, I think there is a tricky balance here - primary sources *can* be used, even in BLPs, provided the information you pull out of them can be easily verified. For example, if there is an interview with the subject posted on youtube, the text on the video confirms this is an interview with Erica Andrews, and she says "I like blue dresses", then you can use that quote in the article. So, I think those who say you can't use primary sources are wrong. However, other sources, such as lists of drag-queen winners that aren't primary from the organizers of the contest itself, and can be filled in by someone simply emailing something, should not be used - even if "everyone knows". For sourcing information about things she acted in, you can cite the films directly if she is credited. Otherwise, you may just have to leave some things out - you could start a list at the top of her talk page, of things you know she has done but which you can't find sources for, and perhaps in time they could be added. I don't know why this article gets attention, perhaps because she recently died, and any time there are lots of editors looking, they tend to throw the book at an article and insist on adherence to the policy whereas other bios slip by. There's nothing much you can do about it - but having more eyes on it means more sources will be found.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

American novelists

When is a decision going to be made to either empty the head cat once and for all or to fill it completely. It looks like there is no more discussion really going on in the matter, and we right now have the under 100 people deemed "American novelists", essentially by just one editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's let it run a full 10 days. I'll propose to Alf that we will ask for an admin to close the discussion on May 4. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean June 4th?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

yup sorry. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

note

thanks for your note.

--Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sewing circle

Thanks so much for rescuing that article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If you look at the german and spanish version, they are full-on about the lesbian story - barely a mention of the social aspect, which is IMHO much more notable and durable as opposed to just a sort of nick-name for some gals who got together in the 40s. In any case, it can still be significantly expanded, so I hope you can give it a shot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for the next week, but I'll definitely try to work on it when I get back. Meanwhile, I found Sewing circle (Mennonite), which could use a clean up, especially in light of the new direction of Sewing circle. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Container category

Hi. Recently I wrote the category preface Books by publisher and did not include template {{container category}} because the latter is emphatic and seems to draw a hard line: "contain only categories".

So I wrote "This is primarily a container category for subcategories of books grouped by publisher. It should not include articles on particular books, only on books by publisher." Certainly I thought of that, and omitted the template, because there was one list in the category. (It happens to be a poor one, whose name I misread as "... phantom ..." lowercase.)

I think some articles on particular small presses or fine presses should be and may be lists as I understand that here, broadly. Perhaps Underwood–Miller and Cheap Street are examples. As lists I suppose they would be pages in Category:Books by publisher.

Are there other so-called container categories that do by design actually include subcategories and lists (and perhaps a main article such as Publishing) but no other articles?

--P64 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know the small press or fine press field and the latter article leaves me unknowing (Talk: Fine press). --P64 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... usually not, though there are exceptions. If you want to remove that template, that's fine with me. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

MR addition was sourced

Please explain, you did not provide a summary when you undid this. Was something wrong with the reference? Ranze (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ack sorry. Am on my phone hit that by accident I hit back and it said failed so I didn't THI I it went through. Not on purpose. Sorry. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Concepts

Greetings, There is an interesting thing going on with Category:Concepts, which I originally created. I am not sure what side I am on necessarily, but the result may have implications elsewhere, and I am wondering how things will go. There is an editor who is adding it to the "main classification" category. (I support your removal of it, I suppose). The intention of the "fundamental categories" is that between the four subcategories (matter, life, society, and concepts), they would cover every single article in Misplaced Pages. I am thinking this is also true of "main classification." So in my mind, that should mean that one should be reserved for the type of categories that would be the name of some academic department at a university, and the other would be ontological (i.e. it tells us what type of thing, the article is about). Any thoughts? Greg Bard (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all rather abstract, obviously. I guess the question is, is there value in having two top-level trees? Why not one? Or three? It's a bit arbitrary, in a way. I reverted the addition because it seemed they were supposed to be in one or the other, but then I saw that Society and Life were already in both, so... Part of me thinks it might be better to define a single top-level set (e.g. main classification) - but defining what that top-level *is* will keep philosophers up at night... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that every single article in Misplaced Pages should be in at least two categories. One tells you "what it is" and the other tells you "who studies this." Greg Bard (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

? As in, directly? There are plenty of articles only in 1 category, and there are probably even *more* categories that are in only 1 category. In any case, I'm not sure if those pages are that frequented - who ever goes to Category:Concepts anyway? How many hits a month does it get? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean category trees, for classification purposes. I don't know how popular anything is, and I don't find that metric useful in this case. The idea is that we are clear on what is being discussed in the article, and what the article is intended to be about. Greg Bard (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying every article should be in at least 2 categories, and one of those categories should lead up to meta-cat-X, while another cat should eventually lead up to meta-cat-Y? the problem is, with topic categories (which many of these are, at the top level), you're not dealing with true sub-set relationships - instead you're dealing with "is related to". This happens all the time in the cat system, and I've decided you can't really fix it - there are going to be *relations* that are captured as parent-child relationships. I guess, in my mind, there isn't much difference between having one top-level category with 20 topics, and having two top-level cats (one with 4, the other with 16). For the vast majority of users, they will never notice the difference.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I can understand the confusion. Things are quite mushy. Some categories are formed in a "x is related to y" manner, and some are formed in an "x is a type of y" manner. It is difficult to be responsible for consistency. I do believe that every article should be in at least two categories, and the only exception should be articles that are also the main article for a category (in which case it can be in just that one). Yes, very few people ever know the difference, because it doesn't make a difference to the vast majority, because it only makes a difference if you look to the supracategory of a supracategory of a supracategory, etcetera. I think it makes the biggest difference when articles and categories are split or merged, and people have to make a choice. Greg Bard (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at this: - I mean, what is the point? I can't see it mattering that we find some way to guarantee that you can get to every article through one of two paths, when the actual paths are forking, twisted, and innumerable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. No one is "getting to articles" using these paths. The purpose of categories isn't just navigation, it's classification. Greg Bard (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean, theoretically, it seems you're suggesting that from any article, one should be able to click up the category tree and end up in one of two places, right? Not that someone would do this, but more as a conceptual exercise? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your thread on User talk: Tarc. I agree with you, the comment was completely uncalled for. IMO, after watching Tarc more closely prior to his post in ANI on the Filipacchi dispute, that comment takes the cake as one of the worst I've seen him make. Therefore, I will be bold and strike it for him, since it obviously construed a personal attack. You may want to inform him of my striking, since He has "banished" me from his talk page. Herr Kommisar 16:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks. I bet Tarc will revert. But I wonder, more broadly, why has nothing been done about this? He's been brought to task for his incivility many times in the past, there's even an external website devoted to cataloging his incivility, and yet, no sanctions have been imposed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for sloth. Kristin Beck is awaiting your advocacy. Drmies (talk)

sorry, gonna be a busy weekend. will try to look later --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

re Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - admit it - you are doing all of this just so you can write "Fuck peer review" as a (valid) header for a section. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah, well I suppose it's a side benefit... — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Women sportswriters

The thing is that there isn't any need for it to be marked as a non-diffusing category. If its non-diffusingness is a completely moot point, because its parent category is already diffused and thus there isn't any content for the "non-diffusing" category to non-diffuse in the first place, then what's the value in it? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But it is *still* non-diffusing, just as Category:American women in politics is non-diffusing on Category:American politicians or Category:American women novelists is non-diffusing of Category:American novelists. I think we just need to fix the template so that it says something like "This is a non-diffusing sub-cat of X. Its contents should remain in X, or in a diffusing sub-category of X." Technically, if we are following the last-rung rule, then every non-diffusing gendered category will have a diffusing category as a sibling, and the articles need to be placed in both the non-diffusing and the diffusing cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bearcat, fyi:Template_talk:Distinguished_subcategory. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A category that could use some attention

Per your comment a few minutes ago about you not liking cruft, and our previous talk about some animal rights-related categories, I thought I'd draw your attention to Category:Animal rights advocates. I'm not saying that the category needs to be deleted or anything, but I do think that it's ridiculously overpopulated, with every celebrity who has ever said anything nice about animal rights, as opposed to persons who have made such advocacy a central part of what they do. I don't have the inclination to do it, but, if you want to, I think it would be very helpful to go through each page in the category, and remove the category from those where animal rights advocacy is not presented in the text as a major activity of the person. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to, just a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of these advocacy categories are cruft-collectors, because ill-defined. (As an FYI, I've nominated the vegans category tree for deletion, weigh in if you like.) If I find some free time I may go through and clean out animal rights advocates, but perhaps first would be better to start a discussion on the talk page re: inclusion criteria which are ill defined for now I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do both of those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MM bio draft

Hi Obi, I've (finally) had a look at the draft and made a (suggested) edit, just because the sourcing in that first section is a bit weak. I think less is more in that case; see what you think. One might also debate whether sources 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 should be cited, given that they are primary sources, but it might be defensible in this special case. Rest looks good. Best, Andreas JN466 05:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

cheers, thanks so much. Yes, I know they are primary sources, but I think we can cite primary sources if the material we are pulling is simple, per WP:PRIMARY, and given these things have already been described in other secondary sources, such as the FOSS architecture book. But I appreciate the review.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

CFD

Hello; you recently participated in a discussion about Category:Reissue albums, which I closed as "no consensus". The category has now been re-nominated for deletion; you may be interested in participating in this second nomination. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory 02:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So we should include sets such as The Beatles Stereo Box Set, correct? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

yes I think so. To me reissue means the album remains intact somehow - a compilation is more of a mishmash of multiple albums. A box sex of reissues should be placed in reissue albums unless we get so many we create reissue box sets...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet Category:Box set albums was deleted even though the first sentence in such article probably starts with "Foo is a box set...". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 20:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ireland CfD

• this diff

Per the CfD, I've reverted the above edit (for now).

Please also see User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Ireland_categories. - jc37 23:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kristin Beck

On 16 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristin Beck, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kristin Beck served as a Navy Seal for 20 years before revealing her gender identity as a woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristin Beck. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats, Obi. Did you count the hits? Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, traffic seemed to about double. Thanks again for your help. happy fathers day! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy **** - calling User:Drmies - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Kristin_Beck - almost 11,000 hits yesterday! Wow... DYK is bad-ass. Ok, I have another one for you: User:Obiwankenobi/sandbox/Magnus - take a look and let me know your thoughts. Its a (somewhat famous) wikipedian. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, isn't it funny? Mind you, I rarely go over 2,500 hits or so for my DYKs. I knew this was going to be a big one. Congratulations Obi! Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

For Magnus you could consider that toast for a hook... Looks like good stuff, Obi. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Hey I noticed you blanked the category on my page. This was there simply to have a link to it for a project I am working on. I didnt realize I was added into the category. Is there a way I can have a link such as Category:Straight edge individuals but that links to the category? BlackDragon 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

sure try Category:Straight edge individuals --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

K thanks BlackDragon 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:DeltaQuad#Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FJackadvisor_.E2.80.8E_.28CU_results.29

I have no idea why folks want to jump the gun on this - CU results were out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

dashes

My edit summary was a bit unclear. I prefer spaced endashes and I don't mind emdashes. But when using the emdashes, we ought to be consistent in usage. Either all unspaced or all spaced. Not a combo. – S. Rich (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

of course - feel free to remove the spurious spaces - but I don't think spaced endashes are used commonly, and since it already had emdashes, we should stick with that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Already - done – by — me. Your-good–buddy—S.Rich (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

hehe. nicely done! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton closure

Regarding your recent closure of the Hillary Rodham Clinton move proposal, I must ask that you undo it. While there are several elements that I think are significantly amiss about the closure (things I'll elaborate when I have a few more minutes to spare, as may others), the most severe and immediate is that renaming a stable article title isn't warranted without consensus – and the contentious discussion (from which the proposer himself has been instructed to disengage) is about as far from consensus on support for the move as any I've seen.

I'm posting this as an earnest attempt at a resolution, per WP:MR; given the lack of consensus, I again strongly urge you to undo the "move" closure. Thank you. ╠╣uw  03:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the civil note. When i first looked at it (i came to it through RM backlog), I decided to not do it. Then, as I read it, I felt that there were strong arguments on both sides, and no-consensus to move was the result, so I decided to try to close it. Then as I read the arguments again, and a third time, and studied the policies and guidance quoted by people, I realized that there was a policy-based consensus to move, and those opposing had weaker arguments. So I didnt come into it with an expectation, rather through careful consideration of the arguments. Consensus is not about counting heads, and if I did count heads, it would have been roughly even. Instead, consensus is about the strength of arguments presented. The support side pushed on several fronts, but mainly on commonname and precision and conciseness. These are all pure policy arguments, and HC passes on all of these. The oppose arguments were a bit more scattered, but not as strongly based on policy considerations. Some on the oppose side basically admitted that HC was probably more common in sources, so it could have been moved on that basis alone, but I ultimately felt that would not be enough, as it is not overwhelming, its more like say 50% more common in books for example. However, when you add to that precision and consiceness, that pushes it over the edge. It was an oppose voter who introduced this line of reasoning, which i agreed with in principle, but it was support voters who pushed on the precision angle which i hadnt really captured in the first read through. So, it was a tough call, but I do think there was a policy-based consensus there. Remember, its not headcount, its strength of policy and guidance based arguments. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mis-using the word "consensus". To have consensus there must be general agreement. Perhaps not unanimous, but without strong and clear opposition. There was strong and clear opposition in this case, and policy-based arguments were made on both sides. Without general agreement, the kind of move that you performed can only cause strife. What do you mean by "policy-based consensus"? Omnedon (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

trust me, I have read the consensus policies many times. Rough consensus does not mean agreement by all or most parties. In addition, we can discard arguments that aren't based on policy or guidance. I outlined arguments that I discarded, and outlined why one side had much stronger policy-based arguments to move. The other side wasn't citing policy, or when they did, they were mis-citing it , and I gave examples of that. Yes it was contentious discussion, and good arguments all around, but the move arguments are stronger and purely based on policy and had evidence behind them. I came to this conclusion based on careful reading of he guidance and policy they all quoted. For example, the oppose voters said things about correctness and official names and its her real name and all sorts of other arguments which may have been useful ancillary arguments, but when put agains commonname, precise, and concise, they just can't compare - and those three are all policy So that's what I mean - if you weigh the arguments based on applicability to titling policy, you get consensus to move. I would find consensus to move with 2 arguing to move and 10 arguing against if the arguments of the two are policy based and the arguments of the 10 Are not - no matter how vociferous. Read 'determining consensus' which explains this point. Finally, there was rough consensus, across all players, that commonname held for HC, and rough consensus / no debate that HC is more concise - which is a key aspect right at the top of WP:AT. If you read carefully, they even agreed that HRC was more precise than HC, but you dont need to be the most precise, you need to be precise enough, and there was no dispute that HC was not precise enough. Thus, on the substantive points, there was consensus, where there was disagreement was on the end result, but you always have that. Again, I did not expect this call going into it, I expected the opposite, but the policy based arguments held sway and were simply much stronger..I disagree with your point that strong opposition means a non consensus finding. If that were the case, we'd never close anything here. Ultimately, it was a call, that I believe is well within reason, but you're welcome to disagree, and I hope it is restored and taken to MR so I can explain it further if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Trust me as well -- I've long dealt with various interpretations of consensus, conciseness, et cetera, as many of us have. Details of the decision will, I'm sure, be discussed at the review, but for now... Many discussions are not as controversial as this and close one way or the other without issue or substantial difficulty. And in any case, it's simply not right to say "we would never close anything" -- this discussion was inevitably going to be closed as all discussions are, but it should have been closed as "no consensus". This was clearly controversial, and I entirely disagree with your assessment that "the policy based arguments held sway and were simply much stronger" as if to say that only the "pro" side had policy-based arguments -- both sides made those arguments, and there were responses to the "pro" arguments which you seem to have disregarded. In a case like this it should have been patently obvious that performing the move would cause conflict. Where there is no consensus, we don't move, to avoid that very thing. And a side note -- there is an odd definition of "concise" that seems to be prevalent on Misplaced Pages. Some seem to equate "concise" with "shortest". It's not. Conciseness involves saying much with few words, being both brief and comprehensive. It simply isn't "shortest". Thus, "Hillary Clinton" is not necessarily more concise than "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Having said all this, I will repeat (as I did on the article talk page) that I believe you acted in good faith, but will add that you were misguided, although attempting to do the right thing. See you at the review. Omnedon (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

re: concise, I was reading the language in the policy, which is pretty explicitly about length. That is consensus policy, and that language is explicit. If you disagree with the language around concise, I'm sure you know what to do - but debating it in a RM isn't really valid, which is why I downgraded that line of argument. You should outline all of the policy-based arguments for oppose - I only saw one significant one, which was COMMONNAME - I didn't see any other policies being invoked with regularity (the oppose votes were mostly around softer issues). Of course doing the move would cause conflict, but so would closing a no-consensus - there are many passions on both sides of this debate, but that doesn't mean there isn't a clear policy-based consensus for moving, which I found (already detailed elsewhere). Finally, the "if there isn't consensus we don't move", I see this as a red herring - of course we don't move if there's no consensus, that why the finding is called no-consensus. But again, consensus is not judged by strength of numbers, but strength of arguments, and no-one put forth arguments that sufficiently contested commonname, precise, or concise - all policy based. Even if we ignore the strong evidence for the supporters, and end up calling COMMONNAME a wash, then the other two lead us to move anyway, for the good of the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never said that consensus was a simple vote, yet you seem to keep hitting that point. But you simply cannot have a consensus where serious arguments are made on both sides by many participants. I entirely disagree that closing with no-consensus would have generated this same kind of upset, as that is the expected result of a situation where no consensus exists. Even some editors who favored the move see your evaluation of consensus in that debate as flawed. It is simply not true that the only policy-based oppose argument was based on common name -- for example, MelanieN cited WP:TITLE. Omnedon (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

True, she did - she actually quoted WP:TITLECHANGES, and I explicitly addressed that in the close (WP:TITLE is just the overall policy for titles). However, her arguments around TITLECHANGES were disputed (I think by B2C), and as I recall no other editors took her up on it or defended it. Per the guidance on finding consensus, "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." If more people had argued for WP:TITLECHANGES then this may have had an impact, but they didn't - it was brought up and discounted. Further, the ngram and other evidence provided strong proof that SOMETHING has indeed changed, and that usage of HC is changing over time - this was an argument made by the support camp, and the oppose camp didn't have much to say against that either.

If you study the case again, the arguments, from a policy perspective, centered otherwise almost entirely around WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, and conciseness, and the evidence on balance for all three of these was clearly in the move camp. Again you state "simply cannot have a consensus where serious arguments are made on both sides by many participants". I disagree completely, absolutely, and totally with this statement, and you really need to go read some of the even more brutal arguments that have been had in the past - say the Jerusalem RFC, or the Ireland article titles, or any other such thing. There are many cases where there are STRONG policy arguments on both sides of an issue, but still, a call is made. In this case, the policy arguments overwhelmingly favored one side. The other side had good, and serious arguments for their position, but they were largely NOT policy-based. That's why I made the judgement I did. FWIW, in the MR, you said I had interpreted conciseness to mean "no longer than necessary", but that is not an interpretation, that is a DIRECT QUOTE.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a DIRECT QUOTE that was incomplete. You used only a portion of the sentence to support your own interpretation. From this point, continuing at the review. Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Hillary Clinton

An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. user:j (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My unformulated thoughts

Yeah... I usually do formulate my thoughts before I write... this time I didn't. My apologies. I understand how it can cause problems, especially on a high traffic talk page like that. Thanks for the polite reminder. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

FGM

Noticed some comments you made on various talks, it really is a difficult article to improve with all the POV-holders reverting anything that adds clarify eh? Ranze (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Also I'm blocked from editing there due to edit warring for a little while yet I think... I think it's crazy that they refuse to provide a link to Clitoridotomy from that page, and that they reverted sourced additions to the synonyms list without reading refs. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

One reason I think notifying everyone who commented in the requested move isn't usually very helpful is because it often simply becomes a re!vote of the original discussion. Either way, mentioning the notifications in the move review was a good idea. And I almost think the discussion there has been more in-depth than was the original move debate. Oh, well. user:j (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Understood. HOwever, as you've seen, we've already had several people switch sides - some !oppose voting to endorse, some "support" voting to relist. I'm personally getting rather tired of the supervote attacks, to be honest. I actually spent about 30 minutes building a case for strong keep based on some of the oppose arguments, I forget which - but then had to discard them based on something else I read in the policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't on that argument. (I mean that sincerely and frankly, not pejoratively.) While I think the amount of refinement it took for you to find any consensus either way would be seen by some as a case of reasoned thought, I think it also makes an argument that the consensus simply wasn't clear. I realize you've had an epiphany that made the consensus clear to you, and I realize your detailed close summary was an attempt to share that epiphany with others, but it didn't quite happen (at least not for me). Then, again, the lengths you went to to share your rationale behind your close — even if I disagreed with part of it — is what reaffirmed for me your good faith in making the close. It was still a very bold close that I disagreed with, but clearly not one that you made without considerable thought. user:j (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and I feel like the more I explain, the more people think it's a supervote, so perhaps I should just stop talking. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning, to people (not you, but others) who are assuming bad faith it seems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a larger, underlying issue: that wp:officialnames may be somewhat inadvertently exposing the project's systemic wp:bias. In both the requested move and move review discussion, we are (almostly entirely) a bunch of guys — based on a quick, unscientific survey of our user pages of those participating — arguing that a notable woman's choice to retain her maiden name as an important part of her name after marriage may be, essentially, unimportant by a particular — but contested — interpretation of our policies and guidelines. That may be fuelling some of the heightened concern. While I don't think it should be directed at you, or any given editor, it is something that I think is a genuine concern. user:j (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. I think only Tarc brought up the "sexist" angle here, but I'm frankly not seeing it - seems to be making mountains out of molehills, esp given Hillary's own website and twitter and many other things besides have no maiden name attached. If she scrupulously eschewed it, that would be understandable, but if you read articles on this, the middle name has come and gone over her career more due to political expediency - they do polls and compare which name works better. I can guarantee you without a doubt, if she runs in 2016, they will do focus groups and polls and use the name that plays best, regardless of her sensibilities. As such, I think in this particular case, it's not really a relevant issue, given she's a politician. Plenty of married, powerful women do not retain their maiden name as a middle name, and plenty of others do. It's really a personal choice. Now, if we go down the road of saying "if all else is equal, go by the subject's preferred moniker", I could see that, even as a policy added to WP:AT. Another option could be: if COMMONNAME is under dispute or split (e.g. encyclopedias do it this way, books do it that way), go with the official name. But it's not in the policy now, so I (obviously) couldn't close based on that. Anthonyhcole is saying I should have invoked IAR and reasoned based on that, but it's the same issue - IAR was not brought up, so as a closer I can't bring it in, that would get me in even more trouble.

One more thing - I've been somewhat muted about this over there, but I want to share it here - I really think the ngrams test is quite powerful. If ngrams showed "Hillary Clinton" always beating "Hillary Rodham Clinton", I would be less impressed - since we might say "well, the book starts with HRC, then the rest of the time they call her HC" - but that's NOT what the ngrams show. Instead, they show a switch - from HRC being DOMINANT, to HC being dominant, over the past 8 years. That to me is compelling evidence of a shift in usage as argued by several editors, and several other editors found that graph compelling as well. I participated in the Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast move, and was quite disappointed when it moved to Ivory Coast - the whole thing hinged on COMMONNAME, and that was a much more robust argument with much better evidence brought, and frankly a much closer call, as it depended on which news source you used to paint the picture - encyclopedias/etc use Cote d'Ivoire, while news outlets in the UK use Ivory coast, but news outlets in Africa use Cote d'ivoire, so there was systemic bias in our selection of only "western" news sources vs "english-language" news sources. If it taught me one thing, it is this - determining COMMONNAME can be difficult. For an example of open/shut COMMONNAME, check out Deadmau5 which was recently moved to Deadmaus - here's an example of completely obvious commonname, as in, orders of magnitude more usage, but it conflicts with our titling guidelines, so it got moved. I still haven't voted myself, but it's an absolute mess over there.

In any case, my previous experience with contested moves is why I roundly discarded the raw google search results - those are basically meaningless. Much stronger, but not fully done, is searching directly in an agreed upon set of high quality news sources (you have to choose the sources first, then test, to avoid confirmation bias), and then clicking through to the end of the results to get the ACTUAL numbers. Someone did do a search of news sources that was strong, but they didn't do the click through. That is why, in spite of the edge I gave HC for COMMONNAME, I never would have closed on that basis alone.

I would actually be supportive of a change to WP:AT to say "If commonname is strongly disputed, and the subject's "official" name is one of the commonnames, prefer that - even if it's less concise." That way, Ivory Coast could move back, and Hillary would as well, so we'd both get what we want :) FWIW, if we *did* change that policy, I'd be on the front lines of arguing to move her article back.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'd make the leap from systemic gender bias to "sexist." The latter implies much greater intent, at least in terms of how I think about the concepts. I will say that, once again, I'm impressed by your thought process and how you describe it (even if I don't agree with every single assumption, I see how you arrived there and ultimately agree with a lot of your conclusion). I think that the relative decrease in the usage of one and the "surge" in the usage of the other wasn't her doing, but rather an animal of the office she held during that period of time... "Secretary of State Rodham Clinton" was relatively unheard of compared to "Secretary of State Clinton." Clearly the State Department's official biography of her, its press releases, her speeches, etc. all usually included "Rodham." But fitting "Sec'y Clinton," "Secretary Clinton," "Secretary of State Clinton," or even "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton" into a headline or even copy is a lot easier than "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." Modern newsmedia focusses a lot on social media, platform or channel versatility, etc. Which means shortest often wins out over accuracy or even concision, which is what I think skewed the past few years the most (plus the resulting feedback loop across all platforms, triggered from that). That being said, I think your idea re: wp:at makes a lot of sense and I would, likewise support that concept. (While still understanding that, at least in my interpretation, wp:official was more geared towards preventing the article from being at Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton than it was at trying to move it away from Hillary Rodham Clinton.) user:j (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

re: sexist - sorry didn't mean to go there, just every time Tarc sees me it seems, he accuses me of being sexist or misogynist, so I'm just a bit defensive on that point. Hmm. Yes, I can see your point. However, on the "headline/copy being shorter" issue, I think in the case of a book, that doesn't obtain - you don't have length restrictions. If you read my close, I very explicitly rejected the argument that "the article title is where the subject is identified, and the first line is their official name", because of exactly what you said - headlines are shortened, so we should not be surprised to see HC instead of HRC in a headline. Thus, I rejected that as a way to discredit sources that used HC in the title and HRC in the first line of the body. I still think the body counts more than the headline. But this is all rather pedantic, given that "Martin Luther King" is ALWAYS "Martin Luther King" --> - so when someone is *only* known with their middle name, it shows, and sources follow it. Yesterday I started playing with google search trends, which is another interesting way to see what are USERs looking for. Now, the results for Hillary are not surprising:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton

But you may say, well it's a search, who's gonna bother typing the middle name in? But check out this:

• Jamie Lee Curtis
• Edward James Olmos
• John F Kennedy

Thus, by large margins, people search for those last 3 WITH the middle name, but they don't search for Clinton WITH the middle name. I'm not offering this as evidence for the close, as (a) I found it yesterday and (b) No-one brought it up, but I think we should enhance COMMONNAME with some more help for people on how to determine "frequency of use in reliable sources" - it's terribly vague, and if you know what result you want, you can cook up data to fit it. There should be a standard, that we just apply unless someone can show otherwise. The standard should be:

1. ngrams
2. google scholar search, clicking through to the end to calculate actual #s of results
3. google trends, so we see what USERs are looking for
4. Other encyclopedias (at least 3) references
5. Search of 10 agreed upon news outlets, scoped appropriately for the topic (thus, for a Brit, use UK sources; for an American, American, for a country in Africa, use Africa-based english-language media; for a musician, Billboard and RollingStone, etc.). To make it fair, each side could decide on 10 outlets, then the other side would choose 5 of them (sort of like, I cut the cake, you choose the slice).
6. Absolutely forbidden would be bullshit like "ZOMG, "Hillary Clinton has 54,000,000 hits, while Hillary Rodham Clinton has only 24,000,000 hits" - its completely useless, as those google hits are just (very) wild estimates, and basically meaningless beyond 1-2 orders of magnitude.

If we had a rough consensus standard for determination of COMMONUSE, it would make so many move discussions much easier, as everyone would just do the standard searches, and then debate the merits of the results were inconclusive - it would be so much better than the current thrashing around in circles we see in these moves so often.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt and Hillary

I understand your reasoning for ignoring the WP:Yogurt Rule. However, if your decision survives review, it will stand as a test of this "rule". I hereby predict time will prove the applicability of the rule in this case, as 3, 6, 12, 24, 48+ months from now, unless something radical changes, (like she becomes president and usage of HRC becomes more prevalent again), there will be no strong argument to move the article back to HRC, so it will stay at HC. --B2C 20:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, I've actually argued that if we change "official name" to upgrade it as more of an option in policy in cases where COMMONNAME is disputed and hard to discern, I would !vote to move Hillary Clinton back to Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, I don't think yogurt would apply here. Also, I looked at and read carefully the other day all of the old moves. They were all terrible, from the support side - terrible arguments, not based on policy, and clear KEEP or no-consensus. I guess the verve was there, but not the argument, so I'm not sure what yogurt has to do with that, but the past renames never would have passed, at least I never would have closed them any other way (except even more strongly to keep vs no-consensus)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. But whether or not the good arguments for moving were actually argued in the previous attempts, all that should matter for the WP:Yogurt Rule to apply is for the arguments to exist, and to have been argued in at least one (including only in the current) proposal. --B2C 19:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think only time will tell. In any case, thank you for the kind comments at the move review. I have caught a sh*tload of flack for that move, but the !votes seem closely split for now, so who know what will happen here... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a landmark RM case on several points. First, it tests the recent apparent change in community consensus with regard to accepting controversial NACs. Personally, I have always thought NACs were fine, but my understanding of community consensus was that they should be limited to "obvious" cases. That seems to have changed, but many are not aware of that.

Second, it's about reading WP:CONSENSUS based on strength of the arguments presented in a discussion vs. measuring WP:LOCALCONSENSUS essentially by counting !votes. Although everyone knows closers are not supposed to do the latter, many apparently expect it. Consider how many in the RM review seek overturning based solely on their unsubstantiated opinion that there was no consensus. Why is it unsubstantiated? Because they only way they could substantiate their reading of "consensus" as being "no consensus" is by counting !votes and finding them to be nearly equally distributed.

Finally, if it survives review, it will be an eventual test of the WP:Yogurt Rule. Yes, you, the closer, did not explicitly invoke it, but that's not necessary. After all, it was not explicitly invoked at Yogurt either. The idea is that in any case where the three conditions are met, and the title is changed (regardless of whether explicitly invoking the Yogurt Rule is at play in deciding to make the change), that the title will be stable and not seriously challenged again (unless something external changes). If that happens in this case, then the Yogurt Rule will be sustained. If it doesn't, then it will be disproven (at least in the form it sits now). I hope that eventually the rule will be proven a sufficient number of times to gain community consensus support so it can be regularly invoked as appropriate.

Very interesting. --B2C 20:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. well, I didn't mean to start anything dramatic - as I said, I went into it expecting NC! I should have stuck with that gut feeling :( Anyway, life goes on. I have asked at Huwmanbeing's page for them to tell me explicitly what are the policy-based arguments for keeping at HRC. I've read the discussion several times, but if you are ONLY looking for a policy reason to keep at HRC, I haven't found it. OTOH, what would you think about a change to WP:AT that says "If COMMONNAME is disputed/unclear, and one of the common names is also the official name/subject's own preference, then prefer the official name." ? That would actually switch a lot of this RMs in a different direction, but not necessarily bad - since COMMONNAME is sometimes really hard to establish.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, when common name is difficult to establish, I think official name is a reasonable tie breaker, assuming it's not broken by any of the other criteria, and that the official name is also one of the titles in the "tie" (that is, if the two most commonly used names are A and B, you don't use C just because neither A nor B is clearly most commonly used, and C is the official name). But that was not the case here. HC is clearly more commonly used, so there was no need for a tie breaker of any kind. Besides, concision breaks the tie in favor of HC already. --B2C 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. I had said elsewhere that if it was between Hillary Clinton and Hillary Rodham instead, I probably wouldn't have found for a move, since both are precise enough, and both are equally concise. Are you aware of other people who are known by 2 and 3 names, where usage in RS can be split (e.g. an encyclopedia might have it one way, but a news article would have it the other?)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Li

I might do that later on. I gotta sign off now, I'll be out for the rest of the day. Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring you or anything ;) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush. i was gonna try, but then decided against it - since I don't speak chinese... I've been able to create interwiki links in the past to foreign languages, but this one requires expert help! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for taking the time to do the research on something that was unfamiliar to you rather than merely reading what was already there and judging based on that! I wish more people were willing to do such extensive research about such a topic! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)