User talk:Grutness

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Clyde Quay School Wikipedia page

Hello, I have chose to revert your edits because of how you reworded some sentences. They felt too simple and you didn't put sentences in the right order. But however, I did re-add some things that I reverted from your edit because I found them to be useful. Thanks for the new features though. I'm happy for you to edit more, but please don't simplify sentences too much. Wetbeans (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't revert my changes before I can respond. Wetbeans (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix your edits. Wetbeans (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry if I sound aggressive. Wetbeans (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's surprising that they "felt too simple" and weren't "in the right order". I suppose my 25 years' experience as a professional editor hasn't stood me in good stead - as indeed my 18 years as an editor on Wikipedia. But that's OK. I'll have a look at the article again and see if there are any mistakes that need fixing. PS - I'm glad that you are happy for me to edit more, because that's how Wikipedia works. Once a person has written an article, anyone can edit it to improve it. Please check WP:OWN. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably should've checked it again. I genuinely have no idea why I said it was too simple. I like what you added, and I built off it because it was good. Just re-reverted a couple of things. They weren't major. Wetbeans (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Fulton

Hi - I haven't done this before but have noticed an error in the Valpy-Fulton-Jeffreys family tree - James Fulton and Catherine Valpy Fulton had 7 children (not 6), and the son you called Henry is actually Herbert Valpy Fulton. He was the father of Julius Herbert Fulton (1901-1973) founder (with Bob Hogan) of Fulton Hogan . 103.250.118.72 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for that. I'll see whether I can change the tree, though it may need redoing in an interactive form (which is beyond me). Grutness...wha? 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woollaston

Hi there,

Just to say I have added quite a bit to your Woollaston page.If you have a chance to have a quick look it would be great. Hope it is all ok and thanks for your initial page, there's still a lot of NZ art people without one. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't checked it thoroughly, but it looks good! I'd do more NZ art articles myself, but I write about NZ art for a living, so it feels too much like work :) Grutness...wha? 06:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thanks

Boy do I owe you for fix the name of the Brooke Gifford page. Thanks so much for your continued help. Cheers, Manymanydogs (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manymanydogs: No prob. I keep an eye on NZ art-related articles because I work in the field myself (I review art for the Otago Daily Times). Grutness...wha? 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mountains of King Edward VII Land

A tag has been placed on Category:Mountains of King Edward VII Land indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep emptying these categories??? Grutness...wha? 04:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech geo-stubs

Hello, Can you please stop with the mass edits until the discussion about proposed deletion will be over? The use of these categories is unsystematic and they are just a historical relic. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech: There is clear evidence that the templates and categories were originally acknowledged for use at WP:WPSS (they are listed here). There is also clear evidence that they would be useful - the Central Bohemia category is over the limit at which it should be split at WPSS (600 stubs). It seems that simply no-one got round to populating them. All I am doing is using the stub templates as they were intended. If the categories do not measure up to the 60+ stubs needed for each, then they can be upmerged with no prejudice against them being re-created if and when they meet the required 60 stub standard. In any case, the original proposal, of deleting the templates, is flawed. If the templates were malformed or not in accordance to stub sorting practice, they would be deleted, but these would simply be upmerged to the main category anyway. The only real way to tell whether they reach that standard already is to stub them appropriately. As such, I am simply following standard practice for WPSS - and also for CFD, in which there is long-standing tradition that if it can be shown that a category is useful (which in stub-sorting means reaching the 60-stub threshold) it will likely be kept. I will, how3ever, complete the district I am currently working on, and then pause. PS: If they are a historical relic, then they should not be categorised within the permcats for the various districts (e.g., Category:Populated places in Benešov District) and the whole of the Central Bohemia catalogue tree needs to be changed. Grutness...wha? 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pause. Only three districts would exceed 65 stubs (Benešov and Kolín being two of them), and the rest are below 60 or have 61–65 stubs and will soon fall below your threshold. From the logic of the matter, it does not make sense that only three districts should be singled out from the whole country so that Central Bohemia could fall below 600. The current number does not make it over-sized. 60 is the bare minimum, but that doesn't mean it has to be blindly followed when it clearly doesn't make sense. FromCzech (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense for three to be singled out if they all fall above threshold. That's the way stub sorting works. You can see upmerged templates in many similar stub categories, just waiting to reach the point where they reach the threshold. If they fall well below the threshold, then they become upmerged; if they later reach the threshold, they get their own categories. Have a look, for instance, at Category:Bulgaria geography stubs, which has some regions split out because they reached threshold, and more umperged because they haven't. The same is true with Category:Kazakhstan geography stubs, Category:Ireland geography stubs, Category:Lithuania geography stubs, and Category:Spain geography stubs. And that's just looking at top level categories, and only at Europe. You're also likely to find that the number of articles - and therefore the number of stubs - grows. At the moment, there's only towns and villages with articles, but sooner or later, it's almost certain that rivers, mountains, lakes, forests, caves, and the like will all get articles. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you result of our discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 16). The CentralBohemian stub ctegory is not overized and the sub-categories should remain empty. I don't understand why you started acting contrary to the compromise of the debate. FromCzech (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate - and I quote - was keep and populate the templates. As such, I am doing exactly what the CFD discussion decided. And all of the templates currently point to the subcategories. If any of the subcategories fail to reach the required viable number of stubs, then they can be proposed for upmerging, but no categories were proposed for deletion in the previous discussion, so as they are there and the templates are pointing to them, that is where the stubs will go unless they are proposed. What I don't understand is why you reverted all the district template use - for instance here, without mentioning in your edit summaries what you were doing. This was completely contrary to stub-sorting practice and in direct opposition to the decision reached at CFD. Grutness...wha? 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't notice it was so explicitly stated in the header. But I don't know on what basis, because no one else followed my last post and you were the only one to speak up for their populating. I emptied the category that was full, because I thought that was the agreement. But although the result is there as it is, in my opinion the categories where the number does not reach 60 should not be filled. FromCzech (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only one I've worked on that hasn't has reached 58 so far. Grutness...wha? 17:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the easiest way to tell from here is to populate the templates, as was stated, and then it'll be easy to tell which categories don't meet the target. From there it would be a simple job to propose the categories for deletion and to upmerge the templates for any that are deleted back into the main CBR category. That would not mean changing the template on any of the articles - it would simply mean repointing the template to the parent category. Grutness...wha? 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to why that was the decision, of the discussion, it was almost certainly because my argument was based on long-standing practice. Yours wasn't. Grutness...wha? 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe what is "long-standing practice" and what isn't when no one else has gotten too involved in the discussion. E.g. you called the 600 stubs limit as common practice, but that's the limit you stick to, not Wiki policy, which says 800. FromCzech (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been standard practice all the time I've been in the stub-sorting project - which is almost 17 years now. By Wikipedia standards, that's definitely long-standing, and the closing admin clearly understood that, as do most people who've had anything to do with stub sorting. Grutness...wha? 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I resign, fill the categories out as you plan. But I'm continuously de-stubing articles, so please respect, if the category is under 60 and should be upmerged or whatever you call it. FromCzech (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate any category that is too small for deletion. BTW - I looked at quite a few of the articles on Czech villages that weren't marked as stubs, and about half of them should have been. Many of them only had about three or four sentences of text. Grutness...wha? 18:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a municipality is small and there is almost nothing, even a few sentences can be an exhaustive description, or at least enough to be on Start level per Wikipedia:Content assessment definition. FromCzech (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that - please check out my essay on the subject. But in some cases those articles clearly have so little information to not qualify as Start-class. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Museum award

		The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
		Congrats Grutness! You've received an Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for creating the articles on Victoria Theatre, Devonport, one of the locations on the museum's list of requested articles. Prosperosity (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you! Grutness...wha? 03:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican baseball players

Hello there! I agree with you fully about the populated place category. Since you have added a new one, I've withdrawn my nomination but I would love for some help to recreate the deleted categories for players from major cities like Monterrey and so on. I tried to in deletion review but nobody agree nor disagreed on recreation. You think its okay to recreate? Especially since the reasons for deletion were incorrect, IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: I got into a bit of flak for creating categories in the first place. Personally, I think they make sense, though. I'll re-make the Monterrey one but I'll probably stop after that, in case it gets someone's ire up again. Grutness...wha? 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness, I will back you up on it if you do get any ire. It just doesn't make sense to NOT have those while, concurrently, there is a whole tree of sportspeople by city and sport (see Category:Sportspeople by sport and populated place). Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) Grutness...wha? 11:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: There are now eight subcategories. Pretty sure those are the only viable (≥ 5 article) city-level categories for baseball in Mexico. Grutness...wha? 12:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic - requesting support to add references

Hi Grutness, I did a draft on Dignan. Not sure if I may contact you like this... but wondering if you can support with some recent references as the draft is declined. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Erm... well, I'm flattered. I'm not sure how much I'd be allowed to add. Someone has tried writing an article about me on Wikipedia before which was also turned down... I'm not really sure that I'm notable enough (though I'm working on it :) here are a couple more possible references though. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's awesome. You aren't allowed to add anything, of course, but can provide references (and photos) for others to do something with, James. I hope you get this over the line, Davidindia. Given that I've never met you, James, I don't think that there's anything wrong with me editing the draft; that's what I've just done (although nothing of any substance). Say if you want me to keep away from it, though. Schwede 66 07:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Dignan, Wikidata Q126869770 Schwede 66 08:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - no, that's fine. :) If it gets over the line, I could easily supply a photo or something. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have a Wikidata item, we’d like a photo regardless 😎 Schwede 66 14:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Okay. This is embarrassing! Here you go. You might want to update the categories on Commons 😎 Grutness...wha? 16:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dunedindouble.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dunedindouble.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it was removed - it's back in the article now. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Grutness, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 04:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 02:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society

Dear Grutness,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.

Best regards, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I'll check it out! Grutness...wha? 02:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Clutha River / Mata-Au

Nice to meet you. I'm a big fan of your work on The Catlins and I might ask here from a person with some local knowledge of the Otago area. I've begun work on the Clutha River article. It's difficult to find content about the course, Māori, and European history in the area, and this is my first attempt at a river article. Prehaps any local history books or newspaper articles might be good sources to use?

Work is still in-progress and I need to find source in the geography section and fix the prose. We'll see how it pans out. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone was doing a lot of editing of that article. It's looking good. I can certainly help with copyediting to fix any prose problems. Not sure what books might be useful, but I'll have a look. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'll keep you updated. Rivers in the South Island need to have more coverage on Wikipedia. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Hello - I'm the person who made the edits to Erskine College that you improved - thank you. I'm still quite a newbie here (inching my way towards my first 500 edits), and I wondered if I could ask an old hand a question about photos? I wrote the page Mavis Wheeler and would like to include a photo. I have identified this one (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw52747) and have been told I can only use it if it's on Wikimedia Commons. With help from another editor with wording, I emailed the National Portrait Gallery, but have had no response. I wonder if I can use it under Fair Use (as the third column on the website seems to indicate)? (I also asked about this at one of the help desks, but it seemed very complicated, and I don't know how to find the answer again). Thanks - I hope this is OK to ask. Blackballnz (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blackballnz: It's fine to ask, but to be honest it's not an area I know much about - almost all of the photos I've uploaded are one I've taken myself. It looks like it's available under a creative commons licence, which I think would make it OK, but it's best to ask at the photo copyright help page (Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) to make sure. Hope that helps. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chip in: the Creative Commons license that they offer is unsuitable as it’s got "NC" (non-commercial) in it. As the subject is dead, "fair use" can be applied. For that, an image will be uploaded to Wikipedia (not to Commons), You can read up on this at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Schwede 66 14:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Bay of Islands, Northland, NZ

I am working on a project to improve the Bay of Islands wiki, adding all islands etc. I would like to create a map of the bay of islands so I can show the island locations within the bay of islands.

I believe you may have created the original NZ-Northland plain map. I wondered if you would consider making one for the bay of islands (or could point me in the direction of someone who could).

I have attempted to research how to make them myself, but its a bit above my paygrade!

hope you can help - thanks

Yes, I could probably come up with something. May be a few days though. If you haven't seen anything by early next week, remind me! Grutness...wha? 13:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Petersmeter: Hope this does the trick :) Grutness...wha? 09:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


10/04-01/05	02/05	03-04/05	04-05/05
05/05	06/05	07/05: 1	07/05: 2
08/05	09/05: 1	09/05: 2	10/05
11/05	12/05	01/06	02/06

03-04/06	05-06/06	07-08/06	09-10/06
11-12/06	01/07	02-03/07	04-05/07
06/07	07-08/07	09-10/07	11-12/07
01-02/08	03-04/08	05/08	06-07/08

08-09/08	10/08	11-12/08	01/09
02-03/09	04-05/09	06-07/09	08/09-6 Jan 10
01-06/10	07-11/10	12/10-02/11	03-12/11
2012	01-06/13	07-12/13	2014

2015	2016	01-09/2017	10-12/2017
01-06/2018	07-12/2018	2019	2020
2021	2022	2023	2024*
*	*	*	*

Archives