Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Begoon (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 1 May 2013 (→Please be more careful: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Hi and welcome to my talk page. If you're trying to respond to something I left on your talk page, please leave it there -- I have it on my watchlist. If you post something here, I will reply here. Thanks!

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

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Obiwankenobi. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000 07:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Cfd on Category:Health issues in pregnancy

Hi, I have withdrawn my !vote based on the conversation you had with Cgingold. The explanation that Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium was not intended to be a parent is what has done it for me. Once that's removed, and a little bit of clean-up between the two, I'm happy.

With respect to Category:Disorders originating in the perinatal period‎, the ICD-10 codes for this category all come from the P-chapter. Whereas Category:Pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium is the O-chapter. It's simply against the logic of the classification to put the perinatal section (babies from 0 to 28 days of age) under the obstetrics section (mothers). This is why I moved it. Unfortunately Category:Neonatology is a redirect to Category:Pediatrics, so I am reluctant to add a medical specialty category. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok - thanks - will continue discussion on the cats on the CFD page. However, a question - according to ICD-10_Chapter_XVI:_Certain_conditions_originating_in_the_perinatal_period, the perinatal period starts at 22 weeks of gestation - and the items within that category cover things that happen before birth. It's not perfect, but leaving it out seems odd as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm used to the Australia/New Zealand definition, which is 20 complete weeks of gestation to 28 days of life. Putting that aside, the P-codes are only assigned to the baby's record once they are born. P-codes are never assigned to the mother's record, that's what the O-codes are for. Section O30 to O48 covers Maternal care related to the fetus and amniotic cavity; while section P00 to P04 deals with the effects to the babe of that maternal care. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What should I do about someone calling me racist and sexist

User talk:Jayen466 has accused me of being racist and sexist on Talk:Rochelle Alers. This makes no sense to me since A-well after the hullabaloo started this was the only sub-cat of Category:American novelists she was in. B-I explitly explained this. At one point as can be seen at Jayen said "WP:Cat/gender (and yes, I know romantic fiction writers are - currently - a subcat of American novelists). That's too arcane an explanation for our reading public", It is too much to expect readers to understand a person in Category:American romantic fiction writers does not need to be in the parent Category:American novelists? This makes me fear that we are on the verge of having a massive increase in the number of categories articles will be put in. I am realy not sure what to do at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I responded there; that was out of line. Sorry for all the flak you're taking. You may want to lower your profile until this whole thing blows over - they have painted a target on your back which is bs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Love Creeps

I think your edits have been fair and well-reasoned. Thank you for your help. Qworty (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Winona LaDuke

• I guess it works, however only because of the really odd nature of splitting categories where people fall in more than one potential sub-cat, but only one of those potential sub-cats exists. It will also push her to 39 categories, which really seems getting excessive to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The outrage that isn't

At some level I have to wonder why the NYT did not go after Category:American hymnwriters, it has only one sub-cat, by religion Category:American Latter Day Saint hymnwriters and no overlap at all. This is the extreme of "ghetoization" if I have ever seen it. Of course it is also true I created a large number of articles in that category. So is someone now going to suggest by populating this category I had some anti-Mormon bias? Or are they going to suggest that I was anti-Catholic in not working to develop contents for Category:American Catholic hymnwriters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good one. There are umpteen other examples. Ultimately, this is ineffable - c'est la vie - and IMHO a massive misunderstanding. I should note however that in my opinion, you (and in some cases BHG) were technically not following WP:EGRS, which does state they should stay in the parent - I wanted to say it to you directly. (Even if I disagree with that guidance, we should follow it until it's changed) I've pointed out elsewhere, solving that problem generally (vs this particular case) is tricky, as you've seen with Winona Duke. Category:American male prostitutes is another one - do you see anyone raging over that sexist classification (what, they aren't considered "real" prostitutes?) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Then there is the comment now on my talk page about "unmarried women" being a contradiction in terms. I am very baffled by it to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

suggest do not engage. No good can come of this. Drop it, don't respond is my suggestion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• On another note I just added Colleen Coble into Category:American novelists. Somehow I do not see people at the New York Times being enraged we had Category:American Christian writers and the effect of it was to excluide writers who wrote novels with heavily Christian themes from Category:American novelists. In fact I have this suspicion some of the NYT people would have supported the removal of Stephanie Meyer from List of American novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Per the emerging guidelines, they are in the writers tree, so at the very least, all should be bubbled up to Category:American religious writers, if you consider that a thematic (and not religion!) cat. Sigh. This duplication into the parent cats is going to make things very confusing - will make it much harder to see who hasn't been diffused yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think though we should diffuse out by specific religion from a category like ;Category:American religious writers. I am also 100% confinced that we should diffuse singers, people in acting, models and dancers by gender totally. I also am pretty sure we should diffuse comedians by gender. On the other hand I would argue that we should not diffuse by race as much in those cases. I would say gender is central to the very roles in how we diffuse there, but ethnicity is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the CfDs close, and the press moves on, and then start a centralized discussion on reform of the guidance - it's not very good at this point and rather vague.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

James Baldwin

Hi, I don't know what happened here - all I can think is that my cursor must have been hovering and I inadvertently rolled back. If I'd meant to revert, I would have done it manually. That said, I don't understand why he's left in the American novelist category but there was edit warring to take Ernest Hemingway out of that category. But there's much about this situation that I don't understand. Anyway, just wanted you to know it wasn't an intentional edit. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ah ok - actually yes you're right, since we now have the men novelist cat, he should be put there instead. good point. I haven't really bothered populating that one, it already has 100 bios - I think I'll just wait for the CFD to finish, then if it is deleted, no change; but if not, he will eventually get diffused down to that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I very strongly ask that Hemingway is not moved out of American novelist. Nor, for that matter should Baldwin. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes good point - guidance states that for now, gendered subcats are non-diffusing, so while I disagree and have posted at length elsewhere on the challenges this guidance creates, I am not in favor of violating that guidance until it is changed. So he could be added to it, but not removed from the parent.

However, if either Baldwin or Hemingway (or anyone else! - I note that there are currently 3000 novelists that *aren't* in the head category) are also in a diffusing subcat of Category:American novelists, then they should be removed from the head cat. Read up on WP:Categorization if you're not clear on what diffusing means: (a quote:"In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.") For example, we now have Category:20th-century American novelists, so both of these fellows would end up there soon instead of the head cat. Feel free to ask questions if you're confused by the above. cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm very clear, though everyone speaks to me as though I'm stupid. I disagree with it and having brought Hemingway to FA status, I probably suffer more than a bit of ownership - nine months of research and all will do that to a person. But anyway, I recognize that I have zero say or power in regards to any of this. Just wanted you to know the Baldwin edit was a mistake - which given the state of my watchlist was bound to happen at some point. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not true at all - you can certainly have a say, but in this case you would need to have consensus to change the guidance, both at WP:EGRS and WP:Categorization re: diffusion and non-diffusion of categories. If I were you I would not get held up on having that little "American novelist" tag at the bottom of the page - there are thousands of politicians, and *none* of them have the "American politician" tag at the bottom of their page - they're all in sub-categories - but life goes on nonetheless. This is just the way things work, and we shouldn't attach so much emotional energy to whether someone is in a cat or a subcat. Rather, focus on what's really important - the work people like you do on articles - that's worth much more than cat schemes. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was speaking to you like you were stupid, that certainly wasn't my intent. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I still feel under attack

I still feel that Milowent is attacking me. His most recent statement at the ANI seems to not at all acknowledge that it is wrong to accuse people of things they did not do. I also find it very problematic that people are so quick to try to shoot people down for higlighting women as writers. I think people are not acknowledging that when we have no category for women speifically in a certain category, we might be hiding the fact that any women were invovled in it. This is an even more pronounced issue for ethnic groups. Milowent seems to still want to engage in personal attacks. I have twice almsot responded to his most recent statement, but both times realized there is no way to calmly do so. However it still feels like a malicious personal attack. It seems he is trying to say "all wikipedia's problems are a result of actions by John Pack Lambert." Maybe I am over-reacting, but the mention of "the editor who is documented by numerous reliable sources, cited everyday on the project for our content, to be the problem." If that is not a personal, malicious attack, what is? The failure to admit that no one fully understands categorization, and that the rules themselves are less than clear, I think also makes this more problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're in a tough position - especially now that the media is naming names. But, the proposal to ban you was roundly defeated, and I would just step away from ANI and let the admins there decide what, if anything, to do. Milowent will calm down eventually. One approach may be to try to discuss calmly on his talk page, or on Andreas'. I've found that a gentler approach works better - I keep on forgetting this. I'd also step away from the CFD for a little bit, you've made enough comments - interesting that you changed your mind. I've been thinking about that too - but we *could* fully diffuse Category:American novelists by century, so I think that may be the best approach, esp since we already have a similar writers tree. If all of these people had been categorizing the 2800 writers and 3700 novelists into subcats by now instead of just bleeding ink, we'd be in a much better position...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• You may have a point about fully diffusing by century. Do we have Category:21st-century American novelists?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I almost posted this statement in response to Avt tor's statement "A quote taken out of the context in which it was given, and then prefaced with an explantion that says it is about something it is not about, is an attack. I never said I thought "female presidents should be called" anything, I never said anything about female presidents, so in fact, to claim I had said something was false. Also, quoting things people said outside of wikipedia, especially when they were not at all meant to have any bearing on anything on wikipedia, is almost always a personal attack." I am trying to figure out how to get these people to realize that it is inaprproaiate to quote statements made on someone's facebook page, especially in the way that Milowent did so, by lieing about what I said and claiming that I "favor calling female persidents presidentesses", when in fact I have never advocated calling any female who holds the title of "president" any such thing. It is especially egregious when Milowent essentially uses it as a way to say "religious attacks on editors are sometimes OK". They are also ignoring how rude it is to say things like "you ain't gonna change the minds of editors who live in the real world", or to call someone "the unintentional He-man women haters club president". This is inflamatory and attack language, and I do not see anyone really asking for it to cease. Disagreement on policy should not lead to personal attacks, and I do not see any actual acknowledgement on these people's part that it is not right to personally attack other users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• What is the point of even bringing things to ANI. No one has yet pointed out to Milowent that he should not engage in personal attacks. It feels like no administrators care about how offensive it is to call someone "He-man women haters club president" and the "unintentional" opening does not change things. I am not the person who accused others of not living in the real world, but I am the only one who had a ban proposed. Should I assume we no longer have a rule against personal attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I also have a sense that people are continually personally trying to blame me for the whole problem. Am I the person who decided to create Category:Women writers but not Category:Men writers? No. In fact I tried at one point to get rid of such categories as Category:Hispanic and Latino American women, and those of us who did not like the category were attacked as a bunch of racist mysoginists off-site, so it is clear that trying to dismantle such categories leads to as many attacks as creating them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• And then there are the lies of salon where they say the work Filipacchi noticed is the work of "a single, misguided wikipedia editor". That is an absolute lie. I did not create Category:American women novelists. I have never edited the article on Amy Tan, which is one that Filipacchi brought up. Not have I ever edited Alaya Dawn Johnson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Then there is this where Danticat was not even in the American novelists tree at all till I moved her there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Latin America

Just a heads up on categorization—Suriname, Belize, French Guiana, and the Falkland Islands are not part of Latin America. Good Ol’factory 05:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I was thinking of nominating that head cat to be renamed as South America instead - what do you think? Also, in some cases, those places are considered part of Latin America (it's not just spanish-speaking countries), it's a more general term for south of the US. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure why we need categories for both Latin American descent and some for South American descent—but then again, I am always somewhat flummoxed by the ethnic descent categories. I'm not sure what would be the reaction if we proposed using South American but not Latin American in categories for ethnicity. I think using the broader definition of Latin America is pretty sloppy and/or liable to be criticised as uneducated, but I do believe you that some people use it in that way. Good Ol’factory 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If I did make the nom, my argument would be, we have basically continental categories within Category:People by ethnic or national descent - N America, Oceania, asia, Africa, Europe - so latin america is the only one that doesn't fit - so rename to South America and resort as necessary (putting central america into N America, or it's own sub cat)? I think the preponderance of latin america categories is overall a problem - as they duplicate many south american categories - thinks like this : Category:Chinatowns in Latin America - what's the point? There are many that are valid of course, but in general I think we should eliminate most except really relevant cultural ones. Another question - should I create Category:People by ethnic or national descent by continent as a container category for the various high-level groupings? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced by that argument. On the other side, I could understand if someone argued that at least culturally speaking, being of Latin American descent is more significant than being of South American descent. But like you say—what's the point? Both categories are extremely broad in scope. I suppose they are OK as container categories. I think a Category:People by ethnic or national descent by continent couldn't hurt as a container. Good Ol’factory 08:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Latin America, it actually has multiple definitions, and the one used in the US includes all of those non-spanish speaking countries. I will nominate that one for renaming, and add the continental container.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

fyi see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1#Category:People_of_Latin_American_descent. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful

I'm sure you spent a long time writing the essay you posted here. I haven't had time to read it yet, but I will try to do so when I have time. However, you moved my comment to a subsection where it had no context and looked like a strange reply to your essay, so I replaced it next to the comment it replied to. People get upset if it seems you are trampling on their text in your haste to post your own screed, and whilst I'm sure it was a mistake, it's the kind of mistake I'd appreciate you looking out for in future. If I hadn't spotted and corrected it, my comment would have looked like that of an abject imbecile in the place you left it. Whilst I'm not specifically denying being an abject imbecile, I'd prefer it if other users reached that conclusion based on my actions rather than someone else's. Thanks. Begoon  17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)