Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GnevinAWB (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 5 March 2009 (Informing WP:IECOLL is taking statements using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BrownHairedGirl is taking a break from her indefinite wikibreak, and expects to be around for most of February

16:24 Sunday 19 January 2025 Please click here to leave a new message for me (BrownHairedGirl) Note: if you leave a new message for me on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. If you are replying to an existing message, please remember to: sign your comments, by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comments (see WP:SIG) indent your comment by placing a colon before the start of the first line (add an extra colon if you are relying to a reply)	click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl BrownHairedGirl's archives List of archives  Jan 2006 Aug 2006 Oct 2006 Jan 2007 Mar 2007 Apr 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Sep 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Mar 2009 May 2009 Dec 2009 Feb 2010 Mar 2010 Aug 2010 Nov 2010 Jan 2011 Feb 2012 Aug 2012 Oct 2012 Jan 2013 Apr 2013 Oct 2013 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014 Jan 2015 Dec 2015 Jun 2016 Aug 2016 Feb 2017 Mar 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Oct 2018 Dec 2018 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 Jun 2019 Jul 2019 Jul 2019 Sep 2019 Oct 2019 Nov 2019 Nov 2019 Feb 2020 Mar 2020 Apr 2020 Jun 2020 Aug 2020 Sep 2020 Oct 2020 Mar 2021 Jun 2021 Jul 2021 Oct 2021 Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Feb 2022 Apr 2022 Jun 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Jan 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Post-Aug future future + Cumulative index
Misplaced Pages Admin I have been an administrator since May 2006. Administrators have access to a few technical features which help with maintenance. I regard admin powers as a privilege to be used sparingly and judiciously, but if you require the assistance of an admin, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. If you want admin help, please do try to explain clearly what you want done, and why, and please do remember to include any relevant links or diffs. I'll try to either help you myself or direct you to a more experienced person if appropriate.

Thanks

Thanks for assessing the Sermons page. I still need to add a few more resources. After that, I will try to put up some pages for Swift's "Irish tracts" and then one on the other Irish pamphlets. Also, work on Molyneux. That way, there will be a greater resource on early Irish constitutional independence movements for those interested in Irish history. By the way, The Drapier's Letters is up for FA review. There are some complaints by some grammarians to specific parts, but you might be interested in checking out the page and/or commenting on the Feature Article Review. Ottava Rima (talk)

Rayment

May I invite you to help please with - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We now have fewer than 90 left to do. I hope they may have been done correctly. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we now regard that as done? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

POV intervention

Please revert your edit warring at Gweedore immediately. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, please don't say silly things. One article move is not edit-warring, particularly when it is restoring the status quo ante pending a consensus on an issue where I have not taken a view either way. Your personal attacks don't help either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely expressing a view on the demerits of your intervention isn't a personal attack? Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Expressing views on the intervention is one thing. Ascribing it to political prejudice is another, particularly when you repeat an earlier attack. For goodness sake, Sarah, I am not opposing your view here, just saying that you acted prematurely in moving the article. Why the rush to ascribe that to political prejudice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm paranoid?? Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blowdart

BHG, please stop User:Blowdart edit warring on the importance for a POV article currently called the Dunmanway Massacre. If you don't act, I will. Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have just driven 500 miles this evening and am too tired to deal with it now, but will intervene as my first task tomorrow. Meanwhile, please everyone remember that WP:3RR is a hard limit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But I would walk 500 miles

And I would walk 500 more

just to be the girl who walked one thoosand miles

To fall down at your door

-The Proclaimers

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2009

An old favourite band of mine, who I had the pleasure of doing a feature-length interview with in their heyday after the success of Cap in hand (video), which I much prefer to the title track of that album.

Anyway, back to Dunmanway. See you there, after a quick diversion for a pint or three in that gorgeously marbled French-cafe-style bar in Timoleague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambig

FYI, when you changed Elections in Ireland from a redirect into a disambiguation page, it would have been helpful if you had made a similar change in Talk:Elections in Ireland. I was trying to comment on the disambig page and mistakenly put my comments on the Talk:Elections in the Republic of Ireland page, instead. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at what is now Talk:Elections in Ireland (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Irish by-elections v. List of Irish by-election winners

Hi BHG, we have 2 very similar articles 1) List of Irish by-elections and 2) List of Irish by-election winners. The reason, as far as I recall, is that sometime back you wanted to change No. 1 into one single sortable table, and I objected, so you created No. 2 instead. The result is 2 similar articles and every time a change is made to one, it has to be made to the other. Looking back now, I'm not sure why I objected to the single sortable table because now I think it looks better and is more useful. Therefore I propose copying the single table from No. 2 into No.1 and make No. 2 a redirect to No. 1. One small problem needs to be fixed, the sort on the Dail column doesn't work correctly, something to do with the numbers less than 10. What do you think? Snappy (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, I can't find the original discussion, but I think that your recollection matches mine. We had a phase where we unfortunately seemed to rub each other up the wrong way, but whatever the reason at the time I'm not sure that my creation of something close to a content fork was really an appropriate solution. :(

Anyway, if you are happy to merge the two and keep the sortable table, I think that on balance it'd be a better situation than having two very similar articles. Thanks for pointing out the broken sort on the Dail column; I have now fixed it (by using the padleft magic word on the sortkey in {{Irish By Election Result4}}).

My one hesitation about merger is that for someone looking for example for "by-elections in the 1940s", the unsortable version is easier to use because it gives a direct link from the TOC to the relevant section. I can't see any way of keeping that in the sortable table :( The ideal solution would be to have sub-heads which disappeared once a sort button was pressed, but we don't have sufficient access to the javascript to enable that, and if you're OK with losing that benefit for the other benefits of sortability, I'll go with that.

There is one consequential issue to check for: incoming links. I have created a redirect for every by-election, so that e.g. Galway East by-election, 1982 points to List of Irish by-elections#23rd Dail. I have used ID tags in the list of winners to create the same anchors, so those redirects will all still work after merger, and I have been through every article on an individual TD to make links to specific by-elections point to foo by-election, year, so those will all be fine. However, I haven't checked every other link to the by-election list, but a casual peek just now found one which I fixed: see this edit to History of Fine Gael. If you go ahead with the merge, we'll need to check for any more incoming links to the complex TOC-derived anchors such as List of Irish by-elections#27th D.C3.A1il .C3.89ireann .281992-1997.29, cos those will be broken by merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me. Let's go ahead with the merge and then check for broken incoming links. Tx, Snappy (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Is it OK if I leave it to you do the spadework? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it! Snappy (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Elections in Ireland

Hi, I don't know why you felt it was a good idea to preempt the work of WP:IECOLL by engaging in contentious page moves, but I've reverted what I could and asked an administrator to revert the rest. Please behave - you know that contentious page moves must be first discussed! --HighKing (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather silly, and I'm disappointed that soneone would claim the move was contentious when it conforms with the status quo. The opening words of the article Elections in Ireland are "The Republic of Ireland elects", and whatever names are eventually agreed for the article on the 26-county state and that on the island, some disambiguation is needed.

If you didn't like the dab page being at Elections in Ireland, then the place for a dab page per wikipedia conventions (see WP:DAB) is Elections in Ireland (disambiguation), not at the construction you used of Elections in the island of Ireland (which is not currently used anywhere else). So I have moved Elections in the island of Ireland to Elections in Ireland (disambiguation) to allow better disambiguation, not least because more articles need to be added to that dab page per the discussion at Talk:Elections in Ireland (disambiguation) to allow for elections before 1801 and from 1801 to 1922.

My concern here is simply to allow readers to most easily find the relevant articles on the subject within the existing naming conventions, whatever changes may be agreed in future. I'm disappointed that benefit to readers seems to have been low on your list of priorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Note that Elections in the island of Ireland has no incoming links other than from this talk page. What made you think that this was a good way to handle disambiguation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi BHG, not too long ago, a move of Flag of Ireland was overturned because the island doesn't have a flag, the state does. For the very same reason that it is obvious that the island doesn't hold elections, it is therefore obvious that someone looking for "Elections in Ireland" can *only* be referring to the state. Until the work on WP:IECOLL has completed, it would be wise to observe the status quo on articles (in that the status quo refers to leaving things as they are for now) and wait. I hope this explanation is sufficient and that it no longer appears silly to you the reasons for my objection, but I was equally disappointed when I saw the page had been moved. --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the flag is a deeply misplaced comparison which ignores the issues in respect of this article.

First, the title is not "elections under the jurisdiction of X", the the title is "elections in X". That includes:

• Since 1922, elections under all state and other powers, including those under the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State/Ireland/Republic of Ireland; those under the the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish government; elections to the European Parliament, which are held under a hybrid of state law and EU law
• From 1801–1922, it includes elections under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, both the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to local councils which were established in Ireland under the law of the United Kingdom
• Before 1801, there were elections to the Parliament of Ireland, under the jurisdiction from of a state called from 1542 the Kingdom of Ireland, and before that the Lordship of Ireland.

So we have 700 years of history to consider here, to at least 7 parliaments under more than five states. You may, like me, regard the pre-1922 elections as having been conducted under a brutal military occupation, with flaws in franchise and execution to add to all the est of the injustice. But they did happen, and they all fall under a perfectly reasonable reading of the heading "elections in Ireland".

It may be that the answers WP:IECOLL will devise a naming convention which will rename some of these articles (as well as many others), and I will abide by the outcome. But whatever is eventually decided there, the thing that saddens me most about your actions here is that you have not rejected just that ambiguity, and instead you took a step which completely removed all disambiguation links, and removed my attempts to ensure that anyone aware of the longer history could find from Elections in Ireland articles on anything other than the current 26-county state. If we follow your logic that "Elections in Ireland" can mean only the 26-county state, then all the articles on elections between 1801 and 1822 should be merged to the relevant UK articles, because according to the logic you apply here, the phrase "in Ireland" can be applied to state-related things only since 1937 (from 1922-1937 the state was not called "Ireland", it was the Irish Free State, so that materaol shoukd be excised too). Is that sort of writing-out of Irish history really what you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and if the article aligned with your response above, you'd have a good point. But since (as you've also pointed out) the article deals with the Republic of Ireland as stated in the lede, and since it concerns itself with post-1922, the same argument used for Flag of Ireland holds. It's unfortunate that you were saddened by my rejecting of the percieved ambiguity you attempted to introduce into this article, and all I can do is advise you to cease correcting articles on your own. It will in all likelyhood result in happier periods for you. --HighKing (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That flag parallel remains a red herring, and your failure to accept the ambiguity here is very puzzling. So in case I have misunderstood something, let me try clarifying exactly what it is you are arguing.

We agree that the article deals solely with post-1922 elections under the Irish Free State and its successors. Do you also agree that

a) there continue to be elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland?

b) there were elections in Ireland before 1922, before the formation of the state now called Ireland?

Those are two fairly simple statements. Do you agree with either or both of them, or not?

I probably would indeed have an easier time if I simply accepted the desire of some people to claim that a word with many meanings must be taken on wikipedia to mean only one of those things. But if I simply wanted to take things easy, i wouldn't bother editing in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I think the flag parallel is spot on. Anyway... What elections are not held on the authority of the government? As to the pre-1922 elections, it might be better to put that information into an article entitled "Elections in Great Britain and Ireland" or some such.... I think you'd have an altogether easier time if you just called things by their correct names rather than looking for, and helping to create, ambiguity. --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Epiphany (maybe)! You're arguing that "Elections in Ireland" might refer to the island and not just the state? No? If so, I refer back to the point I made earlier that since islands don't hold elections, people are most likely searching for the state, regardless of whether they're European elections or not. In any case, my main point is to hold off on moving articles back and forth from using "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" until the work taking place on WP:IECOLL has finished, and then I'll happily follow whatever is decided. Making changes in the meantime is just not a good idea. Let's agree to move on until then. --HighKing (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're ducking the point. Of course Islands don't held elections, but you seem to be unaware that elections do happen in Islands.

You still haven't answered either of the two questions above, so I'll try agai

a) Do you agree that there continue to be elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland?

b) Do you agree that there were elections in Ireland before 1922, before the formation of the state now called Ireland?

c) Do you agree that Northern Ireland is in Ireland?

Those are fairly simple questions. I'm quite sure that you can answer them without too much difficulty ... if you actually want to resolve this problem. --02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Reminds me of a school teacher I once had - not you I hope? I could be a smart arse and answer your questions along the lines of "It saddens me that you continue to ignore the parallel with the Flag of Ireland and I'm sorely disappointed that you continue to use a condescending and belittling attitude with comments such as you seem to be unaware that elections do happen in Islands. No doubt you are aware that's a red herring, as is your general line of questions where you seem unable to use the term "Ireland" in the context of the state. That's your problem, probably as a result of listening to too many British broadcasts, but thankfully not shared by most of the planet. You are ducking the issue and attempting to introduce ambiguity to a subject where none exists. Perhaps when you make an attempt to acknowledge some of the points *I* made, rather than taking an obscure line of questions, we might actually end up with a 2-way conversation.

But I won't. Too crass and bordering on the uncivil if you ask me. Especially all that matronly disapproving language. It's a cheap trick and just comes across as condescending.

I could even respond by saying that I did answer your questions. For a), I asked you to clarify which elections are held in Ireland that aren't held on the authority of the government. For b), I've responded that the article doesn't discuss pre-1922, so why are you introducing it here? And for c), since it's a new question, I'll answer it now even though it's a another pretty condescending question which makes me wonder if you've taken a look at AGF recently. Of course Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, but again you are creating ambiguity where none exists. If someone searchs for "Elections in Ireland", they are not looking for information about "Elections in Northern Ireland". Which brings me back to the discussion on "Flag of Ireland".

Finally, I'm pretty done with this squabble. If you want to entrench in the view that the only decent use of the word "Ireland" is for the island, that's something you don't have to foist on the rest of us. Personally, I've prefer to always use the correct term in the correct context, whether that's for Ireland, Republic of Ireland, British Isles, whatever. In this case, I've asked that articles are left alone until the work on WP:IECOLL has finished, and I've asked that perhaps we just agree to move on. Still asking.... --HighKing (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, despite all your allegations of British bias and all the rest, this isn't at all complicated. The State of which I am a citizen is called Ireland, and that's what I call it. But in some contexts, including this one, the word "Ireland" is ambiguous, and I am astonished that you are so determined to wipe out so much history in your fixation on the idea that "Ireland" must be read to mean only the state.

Apart from the crude British propaganda smear, your latest gambit is to resort to a crude straw man trick, by falsely and mischievously attributing to me the idea that "Ireland" must mean only the island. That is not what I am arguing, and not what I have ever argued on this topic. My point is that in many contexts "Ireland" can quite reasonably be read to mean either the island or the state, and that this is ambiguous ... and in wikipedia that requires the disambiguation which are you determined to deny to the reader.

You are not even prepared to consider how to address the ambiguity; for you, the ambiguity is non-existent, a manufactured idea produced by someone exposed to too much British propaganda. Taken to its logical conclusion, your extremist stance would even separate out elections in the Free State as extraneous matter before the "year zero" of 1937.

Your replies are a studied exercise in evasion. You say that you asked me "to clarify which elections are held in Ireland that aren't held on the authority of the government" ... but omit that I asked about "elections in Ireland which are not held on the authority of the Government of Ireland". The answer is, of course, all elections in Northern Ireland, and I don't know what to conclude from your inability to answer that question for yourself. Do you think the elections in Fermanagh are not talking place in Ireland, or that the 24,348 people who voted for Gerry Adams in Belfast West will have been shocked that in his Ard Fheis speech on saturday he spoke of Antrim as "the best county in Ireland"?

You insist that 'if someone searches for "Elections in Ireland", they are not looking for information about "Elections in Northern Ireland'. Why? Why do you assume that a reader fresh to the subject will know the precise date of partition, that they will know which areas are which side of the border, and that someone from the far side of the world will even necessarily be aware that the island is partitioned and the state of Ireland doesn't cover the whole Island? Misplaced Pages is written for a general audience, not for those who already have the background knowledge.

Take the very simple example of the article on the 1880 UK general election in Ireland. This is a subject which can be (and is) studied separately from that of the wider UK general election, as are other general elections such the crucial 1918 general election.

If we take you line that "Elections in Ireland" unambiguously refers only to elections to the independent state called Ireland, then there should be no route for the reader to the be directed from Elections in Ireland to the 1918 election to the First Dail, let alone to the earlier elections in which the Irish Parliamentary Party became the major political force in Ireland.

I'm clearly not going to persuade you to allow yourself to consider the slightest possibility that someone looking for say the January 1910 or 1918 elections in Belfast might look under "Elections Ireland" and expect to find a way from there to the relevant material. But thank you for setting out so explicitly how determinedly you are prepared to allow fixation on the notion of Ireland=only-the-state to impede the reader's ability to find related material. This thread will be a very pertinent piece of evidence at WP:IECOLL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow again! I feel like I've been standing in front of a hosepipe of matronly scolding. I'll just shrug and move on. I've already made my points, and you have made yours. You can stomp your verbal feet all you want, but in this context we'll just have to agree to disagree. --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Riots in Argentina

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Misplaced Pages pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding ] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again :(

I created it 18 months ago, and I wouldn't have created it if there were no articles to place in it, though after this time I have no recollection of what articles were placed in it. Unfortunately, the lousy way in which categories are implemented allows for no easy method of tracking how and when it became empty.

So I did it the hard way. I looked at the creation date of the category, found my contribs for that period, found one of the articles which had been placed in the category, noted that no reason was given for its removal from the category ... so I restored the category and added the article back to it.

Why couldn't you have done these checks too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I could've, but it would've required me to assume that you were the one who populated the category, and that you did so around the time you created it. Anyway, it's a good tip, and I'll keep it in mind for future situations like this.

If you're motivated to do this sort of research, perhaps you could figure out who depopped the category and take the matter up with him or her. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers

Hi BHG, I presume you still have your admin powers. Would you mind semi-protecting Brian Cowen and Batt O'Keeffe for a week or two? They are the subject of constant vandalism. Most of the recent entries are just vandalism and reversion of same. Tx, Snappy (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. 3 months for Brian and 1 month for Batt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind protecting Alex Rodriguez? It's at RfPP and WP:AN but it's being ignored. I'd say at least three months. Thanks, Enigma 03:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody got there before me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A shame. Thanks anyway and welcome back! Enigma 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Snappy (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

John Lynch

John Lynch (governor of New Hampshire), is always known only as John Lynch, not John H. Lynch, and is by far the primary topic, which is why he was kept at John Lynch. See his website. The discussion seems to have been lost. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, he is not the primary topic: he is possibly more notable than any of the other Lynchs, but there are plenty of other highly notable people listed at John Lynch. There are lot of incoming links to the governor because of wkipedia's bias towards coverage of recent current issues (and because his name has been included in lots of templates), but that does not make him the primary topic.

If you feel that John H. Lynch is not the best way of disambiguating him from the other John Lynchs, then the article could of course be moved to another title such as John Lynch (New Hampshire). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

John Lynch (New Hampshire) would be much better, thank you. Whenever NH is in the news, such as when Lynch was going to have to appoint a successor to Judd Gregg, the hits go through the roof. In general it has been about a 2 or 3 to 1 lead over any other link, but some of that may have been due to people typing in John Lynch in the search window instead of clicking on a link. I believe that most people get to articles from links instead of from typing. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

batt o keefe

As soon as batt o keefe's page loses its protected status i am going to vandalise it again--86.42.184.114 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cfd

UK MPs re-revisited. Occuli (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi! In March 2008 you indefinitely protected Template:Inuse after someone had added a PROD template to it incorrectly, and you also stated that it was a high-use template. Right now, it is transcluded on less than 50 pages, so I was wondering if you could unprotect it (or change it to just be semi-protected), so that users can edit it without needing to go though the whole {{editprotected}} process. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only in use for 50 pages at any one time, but that's because it is added and removed quite frequently. It often appears on quite prominent pages, where abuse of it could cause mischief, and for that reason I'd prefer to see it remaining protected. I know it's a little tedious, but I think it would better to use the {{editprotected}} process. If there's a particular change you want to do, I can implement it if you like and want to avoid waiting for someone else to turn up.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll make my idea in one of my sandboxes and let you know here. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, drop me a note here when you are ready and I'll take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My idea is in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 2. Basically, it shortens the template (getting rid of a lot of the small text in the process), and adds a timestamp to the template itself so that you can see when the template was added without looking through the page history. With this version, adding the template to a page would use {{Inuse|time=~~~~~}}, automatically signing the date and time into the template (documentation would also need updating for this). I have a live sample at User:Drilnoth. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's generally good, and I'll implement it if you like, but I think it's a mistake to remove the bit about replacing it with the {{underconstruction}} (which is particularly valuable for new articles which get abandoned). Do you want to reinstate that, or should I go ahead with the version you have just made? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done some rewording so that everything still fits. If you still like it as-is, I think it's ready to be "live". -Drilnoth (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, in this edit. I also left a link to this discussion at Template talk:Inuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Great; thanks! I've updated the documentation. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Corry

Why have you moved the Martin Corry article to replace it with a disambiguation page pointing to one other example? Would it not have been better to add a template pointing to the Irish politician? How many of the 100+ articles linking to this page are for the politician? noq (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the links to the rugby union player are generated by templates, all of which I have redirected to Martin Corry (rugby union). However, it takes some time for the database to be updated to reflect those changes in the what-links-here listing, but the links point to the correct place if you view the articles. I will check again over the next few days and correct any remaining links which are not generated by templates (I have already done a dozen or so).

The fact that the rugby-playing Corry has been included in several highly-used templates does not make him the primary topic, it just means that there are plenty of incoming links, all of which are easily maintained by the templates.

Martin Corry (Irish politician) is an unusually long-serving member of a national parliament, who was elected repeatedly over more than 40 years, and was a founding member of Ireland's largest political party. As coverage of Irish politics expands, there will be an increasing number of links to his article, and they will be much more easily disambiguated if the Martin Corry page is a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is as may be and as the the Irish politics expands there may come a time when that becomes the primary topic. At present however, the rugby player is the most common. Making a DAB page at this time seems premature. A quick google search for "Martin Corry" produces over a 100,000 hits. Adding Rugby to the search reduces this to 77,000. Replacing Rugby with Politics produces just over 4,000 hits - most of the first 100 referring to the rugby player. replacing politics with TD produces 95 hits. I would expect the vast majority of people searching on Martin Corry to mean the Rugby player. Adding a hatnote pointing to the Irish politician should be all that is required at the moment. noq (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Links between articles are much more easily maintained when a disambiguation page is used, and in this case there are not nearly as many links to maintain as would appear from a what-links-here search, because the vast majority of them are generated by a few widely-used templates, all of which have already been updated.

A google search is not a useful tool for this sort of comparison, because the career of Martin Corry (Irish politician) ended long before the internet era, so naturally is there is not so much online coverage of his life. Relying on google to favour recent articles generates recentism, which is a form of systemic bias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you have also moved Martin Johnson as well. I would suggest that this is not an uncontroversial change and consensus should have been reached prior to making the change. noq (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The same issues apply, only more so. See Martin Johnson (disambiguation) for a long list other people of that name: what chance is there of disambiguating those incoming links to other MJs if they are lost in hundreds on template-generated links to one article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: The templates seem to have been purged at last, and I have disambiguated the last links to Corry and Johnson. Only the ambiguous ones remain, along with those from talk pages and project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

otherpersons

Hi BHG, a quick question, why are you replacing otherpersons2 with otherpersons template? See Daniel Corkery (Irish republican). Otherpersons2 points to Daniel Corkery, while otherpersons points to Daniel Corkery (disambiguation) which in turn redirects to Daniel Corkery. Why the unnecessary redirect? Snappy (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snappy, I'd like to see {{otherpersons2}} deleted, because it facilitates bad linking practice. Disambiguation pages are a special case: see WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. The reason they are one of the few hard exceptions exception to the general rules on bypassing redirects is that direct links to disambiguation pages are something to be avoided, so to save editors from checking whether the link is an accidental one needing disambiguation it's best to link to foo (disambiguation) to make it clear that this is a deliberate link to a dab page. You may have noticed that Daniel Corkery (disambiguation) includes {{R to disambiguation page}}, which allows the bots to ignore that item when assessing incoming links to dab pages to produce Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links and other such lists.

Of course, not all other redirects should be bypassed either. Redirects are cheap (almost zero server effort), and can be more useful than a direct link. The most notable case is where a redirect could be expanded into an article. So, for example, 5th Dáil should not generally be bypassed to Members of the 5th Dáil, because a full article could be written on the politics of that landmark Dáil. Same for the Cork City by-election, 1979, one of two by-election defeats on the same day which hastened the demise of Jack Lynch; there's a full article waiting to be written there.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying that. Snappy (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

poor state of reportage of academia

A colleague of mine not so long ago wished for current scientist trading cards... Ick! "what sane person *wants* to be a celebrity" I wondered in response. I'd rather have a %1 increase in popular understanding of science for a 10% increase in the pop culture status of scientists. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jailed UK peers

Interesting category. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CFD/W protection

Hi BHG—I saw this old discussion about protection for the above page. The protection was temporarily downgraded to semi-protection late in 2008 to allow a non-admin to perform some actions he wanted to do there. Do you think full protection should be reinstated out of security concerns? I'm a bit loath to do it myself, since I just asked a non-admin user to not change the edits that I make to the page when I'm processing a CfD close, and I don't want to give the impression that that is why I was protecting the page. But this user raised the security concern issue with me and it reminded me that it had been protected until very recently, and since it was you who had originally pursued the issue I thought I'd mention it. Good Ol’factory 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the pointer. I have restored full protection: see Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Full_protection_restored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

www.ireland.com -> www.irishtimes.com_www.irishtimes.com-2009-03-03T07:06:00.000Z">

Hi BHG, since the Irish times moved its main website from www.ireland.com to www.irishtimes.com this has left lots of dead links all over many Irish articles. All that needs to be done is to replace ireland with irishtimes as the rest of the url has not changed. This is an ideal task for a bot. Do you know how to get a bot to do this? I know nothing about these creatures! Snappy (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)_www.irishtimes.com"> _www.irishtimes.com">

You're right, this needs to be changed. As you may have seen, I caught a few recently, such as on Martin Cullen (diff) and on Members of the 14th Seanad (diff)

However, the situation is slightly more complicated than you suggest, because in some cases the change is not just replacing ireland.com with irishtimes.com :(

Here's a table of what I have discovered so far:

It may be that the archives→archive shift is the only such change, but since I used the archives quite heavily when working on the Seanad last year, I don't want those URLs to be broken. So I think that the first step will be to ask a bot to collect all instances of links to www.irishtimes.com/.* ... and then we'll have to check for patterns. I'll post something to WP:BOTREQ later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoe. Unfortunately KB was unaware of the glitches described above, so I have posted at User_talk:Erik9bot#www.ireland.com_-.3E_www.irishtimes.com to ask that first we get a list of links to Ireland.com.

BTW it's great to see you back. I recall that at some point a year or two ago you took a long break ... and then I did too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Election template

Hi BHG. Your edits to the Irish election template have kind of given me a push to try implementing an idea I've had for reforming the series for a while;

Instead of having three different titles (Fooian presidential elections, Fooian parliamentary and Fooian referendums), each with their own flag, there would just be one heading (Elections and referendums in Foo {flag}, and then use groups with headings on the side. I think this would solve both the issue you had with the Irish one, and the repeated attacks from the WP:FLAG enforcer. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, the European elections issue was discussed elsewhere a long time ago (I assume on the talk page of one of the hundreds of them!), with the conclusion being that they shouldn't be included (as otherwise in some cases the template becomes unmanageable (presidential, parliamentary, Senate, referendums is more than enough), as is also the case for regional and local elections, which have separate templates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever conclusion was reached about including the Euro elections for another country's template, I don't see why the same has to be applied to Ireland: see my comment at Template_talk:Irish_elections#European_elections.

However, I really do like your idea of a fresh approach. As I found to my cost when trying to tweak Template: National elections, it's a horribly non-standard thing, with unnecessary full-width section titles achieved by a horrible abuse of {{Navbox}}'s syntax. Just using {{navbox}} would allow a more compact template which included all the elections (local, national, European, presidential) and referenda.

Perhaps something like this:

Is that what you meant? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. My only concern is that for some countries there are a lot more parliamentary elections than presidential ones, and having it left-aligned looks a bit funny if one list is a lot longer than another. Can the lists be centre aligned? If so, I might have a go at converting a few tomorrow. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I am fully in favour of it. Snappy (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that there seems to be agreement on this (at least between us three!), but maybe we should continue the discussion at Template talk:Irish_elections, which is where a discussion about the template really belongs?

The thing is that if we follow this path, the intermediate {{National elections}} template isn't needed: we can just use {{navbox}} directly, so we don't have to change other nation's templates. And yes, the lists can be centre-aligned: I just did it to the sample above by using liststyle = text-align:center. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess {{National elections}} might be the best place for the discussion, as it is effectively the model for all the rest of them; I was never quite sure why it was created in the first place - it's not as if the templates use complex code... I'll change a few and see if there are any objections. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Moran

I've provided references for all the players ,this may affect your vote Gnevin (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Two of them remain unreferenced, but I have struck out my "delete" !votes for the articles which are now referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Which two I though I got them all Gnevin (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See the AfD page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen them , got them. Time for a wiki break soon I think . Gnevin (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

GAA articles at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 3 done Gnevin (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Hey BGH do you still have your bot, I may have a job for it ?Gnevin (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, BHGbot is still there. It's been gathering rust for a while, but it's time it was dusted off and given some exercise. As you'll see from its user page, it has a fairly limited scope, but I'd be happy to ask for an extension to its remit if there's a task I can program it for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you tag User:Gnevin/sandbox1 with {{GaelicGamesProject}} Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I'll do it with AWB, but it'll have to wait until I fire up BillOS later on. Your list makes it very easy job, which AWB can do v easily ... but having the bot flag means that I won't have to sit there whacking the ENTER key :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The list was created with AWB but as you say hitting enter is a pain. I may request you run this a couple of time I hope you don't mind. Gnevin (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

BHGbot's authorisation was only for WikiProject Ireland (see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot), and I committed to seeking further approval before using for any other WikiProjects. I'm just about to make that request, and it may take a few days before to get approval. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See request for approval at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot_2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gnevin asked me to tag GAA articles I saw with the {{GaelicGamesProject}} template. I added it to my monobook Outriggr script but for some reason it does not appear in the drop down menu list. Any ideas? Maybe it needs a full template as opposed to a simple project banner. I presume BHGbot could tag all found talk pages very easily as it did for the Ireland WikiProject especially as there are no assessment or class ratings to be taken into consideration. ww2censor (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just tried that too, with a similar non-appearance in the drop-down list. I guess that Outriggr's script reckons that if there are no parameters, it has nothing to do. Pity :(

Anyway, if the BAG gives approval to BHGbot, it can do the job quite easily, as you say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)