User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 058

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Edit to category page removed text[edit]

This edit to a category page removed some important, although strange, syntax. You might check your script if you are using one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jonesey95. That was one of AWB's WP:GENFIXes, so outside of my control. Your fix[1] is a good one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I make editing mistakes as well. When I catch a script doing something I don't want it to do, it's always a good reminder that I need to preview each edit more carefully, report a bug, disable the script in question, or some combination of the three. If you have more of these edits to perform, you might consider turning off AWB's general fixes. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't turn off genfixes. They do lots of good, and the cases where they have unintended side-effects are exceptionally rare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the removal of an intentional paragraph break, as shown here, part of AWB's general fixes, or did you remove that paragraph break manually? If it is the former, I will report a bug. If the latter, please do not remove these paragraph breaks. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95, I think that was probably caused by my own blank-line removal regex, rather than by genfixes. I try to watch for the rare cases where the removal would be inappropriate, but I seem to have missed that one. Thanks for fixing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did it a bunch more times after this post on category pages that I have on my watchlist. Please check all of your edits to category pages and fix the ones where you removed intentional paragraph breaks. Thanks in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a missed another few. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CatAutoTOC issue[edit]

CatAutoTOC is not working at Category:Category-Class Women's tennis articles. I think this is because {{PAGENAME}} is returning Category-Class Women's tennis articles (' rather than ' when you edit source) and then PAGESINCATEGORY isn't looking at the correct page.

It probably a bug with PAGENAME but as a workaround, instead of using {{PAGESINCATEGORY|{{PAGENAME}}|R}} in {{CatAutoTOC}}, you could use {{PAGESINCATEGORY|{{replace|{{PAGENAME}}|'|'}}|R}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to happen if the category name contains an "&". -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the template, using a module to remove all the HTML encoding of the pagenames. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many, many thanks for that, @WOSlinker.

I had spent a lot of time looking at Category:CatAutoTOC on pages where PAGESINCATEGORY returns zero, trying to figure out why some sets of "men's" and "women's" categories seemed to be consistently getting a false zero from PAGESINCATEGORY, but couldn't see a reason. I guessed that it was some quirk of the broader bug with category counts, but never considered HTML encoding.

I have used AWB to do runs of null edits on some of these sets, and they now show no false zeroes. So I reckon that your fix seems to ave solved the problem entirely. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Jimbo Wales Barnstar for not vandalising or trolling
		Thanks for not being a troll. Zz.ozzz (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After 14 years of editing, it's great to know that someone has finally decided that there is enough evidence to conclude that I am not a troll or a vandal.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Template:Photo requested usage?[edit]

Greetings BrownHairedGirl. I noted your "Talk:Little Owyhee River ‎ →‎River image request" edit of the photo request. Is it better to not include the category field? I've not done many of these so just followed the template's help page example: { {photo requested|rivers and waterfalls|in=France|in2=Germany} }

Thanks! — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit[2] to Talk:Little Owyhee River was to remove the rivers category, because that category doesn't exist.

See this page as you edited it[3], which placed the page in the non-existent Category:Wikipedia requested images of rivers . Per WP:REDNOT, that is an error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, totally missed that. I was going to put it into a "Category:Rivers of <State>" category, but since it runs thru 3 states, I just punted. Thanks for catching & fixing 🙏. Any idea if having the Category helps get it noticed in any way? — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is that it is at least one relevant category. I don't have much dealings with images, so I am not sure how well image requests are met, but my impression is that it is wildly variable: some areas have seems to lots of volunteer photographers working their way through the lists, while other areas the requests just pile up.

However, there is zero point in placing any page in a non-existent category, because nobody will find it that way. You need to use the requested-image categories which actually exist. See Category:Wikipedia requested images by subject for the full category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS found one that would help you: Category:Wikipedia requested images of rivers and waterfalls. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Nice find. I'll plug that in. Yes, I think I'm batting ~2% over a decade+ of asking. And it takes a long time for some less popular articles. Thanks again. — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“ Round my way, that's called shot-stirring.”[edit]

‘Round your way is a lot more civilized than ‘round my way, lemme tell you. Qwirkle (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: my apparent civilisation was a typo. But maybe a helpful one

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hospitals in Vanuatu[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hospitals in Vanuatu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page format - problems for narrow screens[edit]

Hallo BHG, Could you perhaps tweak your page format? The black borders down the side make it almost unreadable on a narrow screnn such as my phone, as they occupy half the page width there. Could they be set at a %age of the page rather than fixed width, perhaps? Thanks. PamD 07:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PamD 07:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, @PamD.

I once bought a smartphone and hated it. When I wanted to make a call, I had to press a button marked "phone" ... i.e. I had to tell my phone that it was a phone. I don't have space in my psyche for a gadget with an identity crisis, so when some clumsy eejit put it in the washing machine, I wept tears of joy and upgraded to a €1.99 phone with real buttons.

So I still just have a steam-driven phone phone, and wouldn't used a phone to read en.wp any more that I would use a phone stir the soup or chop down trees. So I have no idea how the page works on a phone. Anyway, I take it that your thanks means that my removal[4] of the borders has worked for you ... which is great, 'cos you're probably not the only phone user coming here.

Now to decide if my period of mourning for John Prine can ever end ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have turned into a glued-to-phone teenager (though I suspect that my rather modest phone is one which the average kid would turn their nose up at). I tend to lie in bed in morning browsing watchlist etc, and use it for all sorts of useful things like weather, BBC sounds for Archers catchup, YouTube for choir rehearsals out of earshot of other half, and the C-19 symptom checker app. I don't make many calls and send very few texts. And when we're out walking there's the amazing "Peak Finder" which you point at the horizon to see a labelled panorama identifying the summits on the skyline, one of the few apps I've actually paid for (a couple of pounds), which is splendid. But on our local walk yesterday it didn't know about the nearby trees from local viewpoint so was optimistically telling us we could see various Lake District summits which we couldn't. Ah well. On with the sewing of scrubs bags now. Stay safe. PamD 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian women categories restoration[edit]

Hi BHG. I deleted the post at ANI to which I had pinged you, because I posted it just minutes before the discussion was closed, and I think the close made my post moot. I didn't want you to be confused by a "phantom ping" next time you log on so I'm posting here. The reason I pinged you was that it looks to me that there are a couple thousand mainspace edits that need to be undone, between 17 Apr 10:00 – 18:00 and 19:30 - 24:00; 18 Apr 08:00 - 11:00; 19 Apr 02:00 - 08:00; and, 21 Apr 08:00 - 14:00. I was going to mass rollback those, but noticed that you had already gotten to a bunch of them, and I don't want to mess anything up you're working on. So if you'd like some help I'm happy to help, and if not that's of course fine, too, but I won't do anything until I hear from you. Best, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, @Levivich.

Yes, I undid maybe a hundred or so of them, but there area few thousand left to fix. And Chris.sherlock has preferred to devote their energies to blaming everyone else, rather than to fixing the mess they made :(

In most of the edits I did, I followed up the reversion with other improvements to the categorisation. I would be sorry to lose those fixes.

I have never used the mass rollback tool, so i don;t know its capabilities. Is it possible to exclude the more recent edits which I reverted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my most recent comment at the case request, I would feel hypocritical if I didn't offer to help with the reversions... but I am not knowledgeable about things like mass reversion tools. If either of you can point me to some that are simple reversions, I'll make some progress on the backlog.
PS: I get you are frustrated, BHG, but is the needling of CS in that post really necessary?
EdChem (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles you've edited would be excluded from being rolled-back by default... only "rollbackable" edits are rolled back (meaning, those edits that are still the current version of the page), and the others are skipped over.

Because there are thousands of affected articles, some have invariable already been edited, and thus can't be mass-rolled-back. The script will skip over them, and we'll have to go through those manually. I guess this is why it's better to mass-rollback sooner rather than later–the longer we wait, the more articles will have been edited, and the fewer edits are mass-rollback-able.

So, three lists are needed: (1) all affected articles, (2) affected articles that were mass-rolled-back, and (3) affected articles that were not mass-rolled back. I'm going to go ahead and do the mass rollback and make those lists in my sandbox and I'll post here when that's done.

There's a fourth list, which is edits to the Category: namespace. [5] I think those have already been handled.

There's a potential fifth list, which is categories that were tagged for speedy deletion and actually deleted. If there are any pages in this group, as a non admin I wouldn't be able to see it, and CM doesn't seem to keep a CSD log. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @Levivich. I am on my way to bed now, so only a brief reply to say yes please, great that you are going ahead ASAP. I will review your lists tomorrow to see if any further attention is needed, but I agree that the initial work needs to be done now. Thanks again.

@EdChem I think this makes your kind offer of help superfluous. And yes, I think it entirely appropriate to note the CS has declined to take any part in cleaning up the disruption and has left the burden to others ... especially when CS does have time to sustain their smear campaign against those who challenged CS's misconduct. It's bad enough have to clear up someone's shit, but their decision to continue hurling more shit adds aggravation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're gonna love this. # of articles that can be mass-rolled-back: 92. # of articles left to go through by hand or some other way: 1,368. Details and lists at User talk:Levivich/sandbox7. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the checking, @Levivich. But ... ~#*!$€!**¬&!!. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For info, mass rollback is restricted to the current page of contribs that you are looking at, so you can expand/restrict the view to e.g. 20 or 250 using the standard viewing buttons, or to a specific number by editing the URL.

As usual with rollback, it has the potential disadvantage of also rolling back any immediately preceding edits by the same editor, regardless of their validity. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorised categories[edit]

Did you mean to create categories such as Category:Lafayette Leopards men's soccer with an uncategorised tag, even though they are in a category? They therefore show up when browsing Special:RandomInCategory/All uncategorized pages even though they really don't need additional categories.--Pontificalibus 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: they do need more parent categories. Category:Lafayette Leopards men's soccer needs two more parents: one for college men's soccer, and one for soccer at that college. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but these categories aren't uncategorised - they are already in a category. You may think they need more, but that isn't a reason to tag as uncategorised - they don't need additional categories in order to become categorised. ----Pontificalibus 05:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus if there is a template to indicate that they are in fact under-categorised, please let me know. I will then do an AWB run to switch templates.

But in the meantime it's better to have a slightly inaccurate cleanup tag than no cleanup tag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Improve categories}}? Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mitch Ames. I had forgotten that one, because I usually do the improvement rather than just tagging. I will apply the tags now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done in these edits[6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nth-century Fooer categories[edit]

I apologise for peppering you with questions, I promise you I'm not doing it to be irritating. However, can you clarify if the Category:20th-century Australian women only counts the career of the woman in question? I ask because of this edit, with the edit summary "removed Category:19th-century Australian women using HotCat - career in 20th century". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock, it's kind of you to apologise, but un-needed; your questions aren't irritating at all. Quite the opposite, because they show a good faith effort to understand, which is always beneficial to the community and to the 'pedia. So thanks for asking.

My understanding has always been that any "Category:xth-century Fooers" is for people who were actually doing Foo in the x-th century. Many people pursue difft occupations at difft stages of their lives, or have long periods of retirement, so I see no point in categorising someone as "Fooer" in a period when they were not doing Foo".

I will try to illustrate it with this entirely fictitious example:

The English General Sir Algernon FitzFitz Snodgrass, OBN was born in 1841. He had an illustrious military career invading large chunks of the planet, and achieved fame for his command of the 53rd Heavy Slaughterers at the 1895 Battle of Godforsaken. He retired early in 1897 after being seriously injured in a fight at a brothel (which would have caused much scandal had the story not been suppressed), but after a few years he recovered well. In 1903 Snodgrass published the first of four volumes of his military memoirs, which were acclaimed for their military insights, their detail, and their lucid, accessible style. The memoirs were serialised in the Sunday Reporter, earning Snodgrass a small fortune with which he purchased a country estate in Borsetshire. There he built a country mansion named "Tueur House", to his own design in the Jacobean Revival fashion. It is now a Grade 1 listed building, and since 2014 has been home to the Scots-Eritrean rapper ShootsMon.

Snodgrass obviously belongs in Category:19th-century military personnel, because he was a notable military officer in the 19th cent. It would make no sense to me to place Snodgrass in Category:20th-century military personnel, because he had no military role in the 20th cent.

Similarly, Snodgrass clearly belongs in Category:20th-century English writers, because his notable memoirs were written and published in the 20th century. But until then, he written nothing other than internal military communications. So it would make no sense to me to place Snodgrass in Category:19th-century English writers, because in the 19th century he was not a writer.

And for his house design, Snodgrass clearly belongs in Category:20th-century architects, but not in Category:19th-century architects.

However, I stress that's my personal view. I don't recall any discussion about this, and WP:COP doesn't directly address it. WP:COPDEF points in that general direction, but it's far from precise. so it might be worth starting a discussion at WT:COP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

PS @Fayenatic london, Oculi, and Marcocapelle: any thoughts on this question about century categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Such guidance would be very useful: I think I've looked for it a couple of times while wondering which cats to choose for someone, whether it's based on date of birth or of activity, when/whether to use two century cats for one person, etc. Thanks. PamD 06:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree eith your (BHG) interpretation above and perfectly fine to add this to WP:COP. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also fully agree. And thank you for inventing such a lovely example!

The question of whether to use one century category or two is a matter of proportion. If a person's work in one profession was mainly in one century, I omit the other century. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fayenatic & Marcocapelle. I will draft some wording to add to WP:COP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with this line of argument re centuries. I find a video of ShootsMon. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Oculi. And I love that the video actually exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I pose another brief example?

Clarissa Blenkinsop (1850-1910) was an English novelist whose 1908 debut novel Tales from the Boudoir was highly acclaimed and led to much speculation as to whether it was based on the lives of members of the royal family. Little is known of her early life in rural Borsetshire or her life as a vicar's wife in Ambridge until the death of her husband in 1907.

OK, she's clearly Category:20th-century British women writers and Category:20th-century English novelists, but is she also Category:19th-century English women, if all she did in the 19th century was to lead a quiet non-notable life, do good works in the parish and meet her friends for afternoon tea? PamD 11:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that this seems to be exactly the question, or one of the questions, which Chris asks at the top of this section. PamD 11:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, @PamD. Clearly she lived most of her life without notability, so per WP:COPDEF I think she should be categorised only under 20th century, when she started doing he thing that made her notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add to WP:COP: see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#By_time_period. Pinging participants above: @Fayenatic london, Oculi, Marcocapelle, Chris.sherlock, and PamD:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In full agreement. Another point from above concerns the non-occupational categories, e.g. that Clarissa should not be categorised in Category:19th-century English women. It might be worth inserting that on the talk page there, but the point is implied in your shorter Tudor example. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is very helpful, thanks. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories restored[edit]

Enough of this already. Chris is welcome to engage me in substantive discussion (as above on this page), but I have had way more more than enough of the drama which Chris attempted to reopen in this section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi BHG, I am a bit hesitant to tell you this, but I've just spent the past two hours restoring my category changes. I did it manually, but it wasn't that hard to do. All I did was to open every articles in the Category:20th-century Australian women, Category:19th-century Australian women and Category:21st-century Australian women categories in a seperate tab (yes, I did this in several batches). Then I checked my edit summary, and clicked on undo where I had split the category and removed the old category. Where there was a conflict I made the change manually. I was able to get a workflow going that sped up the process considerably. You won't have to do any more changes. I hope this helps.

It's been very difficult for me to take your reaction to my edits, which were done in good faith. I have felt bullied by you, even if you did not mean for this to be the case. I hope that that I can limit my interactions with you to a bare minimum in future. I don't say this to be unkind, mean or perverse, but you genuinely made me feel unsafe on Wikipedia and I feel it is best I stay my distance from you. I hope this will be taken the right way, but I feel I need to say it so you know how your actions made me feel. I also was extremely disappointed that you felt that it was ever necessary to call someone's good faith attempt at explaining their position on something "gobbledygook". You never know what difficulties they may have in expressing themselves, although it made perfect sense to me.

I wish you nothing but good things for the future, and I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock, thank you for reverting your edits. That brings to an end several days of disruption.

As to your claim to feel bullied, well I have no right to tell you how to feel. All I can say is that I stand completely unapologetically by my response to your actions, in which you created a massive timewasting drama through your sustained sustained refusal to accept the requests of multiple editors to follow established decision-making channels, and then by your repeated insistence on personalising the dispute -- including your attempt to smear DuncanHill, and your subsequent attempt to smear me with false accusations on your talk page.

The impression I gained of you was of someone who is uncomfortable with or unfamiliar with analytical discussion, and who chooses instead to personalise any disagreements. Your later very constructive participation on his talk page gave me hope that a better and more reflective you was dominant, but this latest post suggest that the positivity may just have been a blip. Pity; I liked the Chris that I saw in that interlude.

As to calling Gnangarra's comment gobbledygook, I stand by that too. Nobody else at ANI or at your RFAR shared your interpretation of that word. I had never heard of that interpretation before, and as usual you have cited no source for your claim. Multiple other editors agreed that the comment[7] was incoherent. So I am sad to say that I see a pattern of you repeatedly acting impulsively with inadequate consideration, not listening to others, and then actively seeking opportunities to take offence rather than to resolve problems through effective consensus-building.

If that's the pattern you continue down, then it's likely that you will sooner or alter find yourself back at ANI or Arbcom, with the wind even more strongly against you. And if that's what happens, then I will be very sad ... because I have seen a better Chris. So I am sad for you as a person that you have decided to return to offence-taking. My door remains open if and when the calm-discussion Chris wants to resume dialogue.

But as to all his playing the victim card and claiming that you are being "bullied": get a mirror. Three times in a few days I watched you trying to smear other editors with falsehoods, so in my book your claim is pure projection.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I hope we can limit our interaction to a bare minimum. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I will neither seek you out nor seek to avoid you. If you choose to engage constructively when our paths cross, then I will welcome that and respond in kind, as I have shown above; but if you try any of that game of process-evasion, smearing and personalising and then claiming that you being bullied, then I won't hesitate to challenge that and support action against you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category fixes[edit]

I hesitate to add this here, given the way you spoke to me, but... I can actually fix all the categories tonight Australian time. Only if you want me too. It shouldn't take me a long time. Entirely up to you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want done with this change? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cleaning uo after yourself would be great, @Chris.sherlock. Your offer comes sadly late in the saga, but better late than never.

As to Freda Bage, Bearcat's edit was spot on and should stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is the issue we were trying to tell you about. Mitch Ames insists that this is not valid and that you can't have that. I argued with him about this on AWNB, and on my talk page - see User talk:Chris.sherlock/Archive 2#WP:SUBCAT. He refuses to allow the article into the non-diffusing parent category and the subcategory. So unless I'm missing something (and I genuinely might be mistaken, this is quite tricky for me to grasp) this is similar to how he says that an article cannot be in both Category:20th-century Australian women writers and Category:20th-century Australian women. Your advise on this matter would actually be very much appreciated, regardless of your feelings towards me, because I'm incredibly confused on this particular matter. Which is why I tried a different tack, which is the issue I am now undoing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example edit that he made - Remove supercategory of existing diffusing subcategory per WP:SUBCAT. If he is in the right, then no need for me to do anything more than what I'm doing. If he's in the wrong, then I'm also going to have to do some more changes to fix this misunderstanding (which in this case, will not have been my doing). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris.sherlock, the Freda Bage edit is fine - Category:Australian women biologists is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Australian biologists (explicitly so now), because gender categories are generally non-diffusing, per WP:DUPCAT.

Regarding [8] - I removed Category:20th-century Australian women because it is the parent of Category:20th-century Australian women writers and the latter is diffusing by "writers" ("20th-century Australian women writers" is only non-diffusing on "women").

He refuses to allow the article into the non-diffusing parent category and the subcategory. — I suspect that the crux of the problem is your use of the words "non-diffusing parent category". Parent categories never diffuse - child categories diffuse (or not, in the case of gender) the parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock: @Mitch Ames is correct. The diffusion works as Mitch describes it, and i hope that you find Mitch's description helpful.

I know that the application of WP:EGRS and the use of non-diffusing sub-categories is a complex and sometimes confusing issue, so I make no criticism of anyone for not grasping it all first time round.

However, I have do have a big criticism of those who leap to simplistic conclusions when the first encounter the issue, even more so when they take action without adequate discussion ... and especially when they don't put the brakes on when challenged ... and even more when they they then lash out with bogus accusations against those who tried to get them to stop. And when they do all that and don't set to work to clean up their mess after a broad consensus form against them, then we have a massively disruptive editor ... which is why I advocated that you be indef-blocked.

So I am delighted that you have finally changed tack. It's great that you are now reverting your edits, and even better that you are now engaging in constructive discussion here. I hope we can continue this discussion ... but please please please please will you also take some time to reflect on how your conduct here escalated this into a huge time-sink for so many other editors? I count at last five key points at which you should have backed off and sought broader discussion, but instead escalated. I estimate that the drama you caused used up at least 50 person-hours of editor time, and that is all time which could otherwise have been used to improve the encyclopedia. So I hope it's clear from ANI and from your RFAR thread that if there is any recurrence of this, a block or CBAN will be firmly on the table.

Now, back to substance. I will try to answer your question below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then isn’t this doing exactly what we were accused of doing seven years ago - ghettoising women? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Chris.sherlock, it is absolutely not ghettoising women. Quite the opposite, because non-diffusion is precisely to prevent that. The fact that Category:20th-century Australian women writers is a non-diffusing subcat of Category:20th-century Australian writers means that the gendered category is an addition not a replacement ... so no woman should be removed from Category:20th-century Australian writers just because she is a woman.
I hope that helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely concerned that we are hiving off women into their own category when we do not do this for men. It feels to me that we have decided, as a community, that women are more "precious" than men, and thus need their own category. This seems very paternalistic. Just my opinion (and evidently I'm not alone). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, strike that! That is exactly what Mitch Ames did when I added women writers to the parent writers category. That's what brought about this whole mess. He did a mass revert of my changes, which is why the conversation came up at all! You have literally just confirmed that my actions in doing so were correct. So can I go back and add anyone in Category:20th-century Australian women writers to Category:20th-century Australian women? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Chris.sherlock, as explained above, we are not "hiving off women". What we have is, in some occupations, an additional category for women. As I have already pointed out to you before on at least two occasions, per WP:EGRS#Special subcategories:

this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources

In the case of women writers, there have been extensive CFD discussions about whether to have categories for women writers, and the answer for about 14 years has been a consistent "yes": the topic is academically or culturally significant. I have pointed you for example towards the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American_women_novelists, and I dearly wish that you would take a decebt amount of time to carefully study both EGRS and that 2014 CFD instead of jumping to conclusions from partial understandings.

One example of those hasty misunderstandings is your statement we have decided, as a community, that women are more "precious" than men, and thus need their own category. This seems very paternalistic. That is covered in WP:CATGENDER, and has been a stable principle for well over a decade, with little or no change in wording. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. No, @Chris.sherlock you cannot go back and add anyone in Category:20th-century Australian women writers to Category:20th-century Australian women ... because Category:20th-century Australian women writers is a diffusing subcat of Category:20th-century Australian women.

That is different to its other parent: Category:20th-century Australian women writers is a non-diffusing subcat of Category:20th-century Australian writers.

Please, slow down and study before posting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:20th-century Australian women writers is tagged as a non-diffusing category of Category:20th-century Australian writers. It might be worthwhile having another look at that category. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I misread. Sorry about that. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020[edit]

News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

Featured content: Featured content returns

Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PastorWayne[edit]

User:Westfield2015 will be User:Pastorwayne; Westfield is some area in his town (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne}. See Stuttgart cats. Oculi (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks, @Oculi.

I have tagged[9] the userpage as a suspected sock of PW. What a timesink.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY in media[edit]

Hi, wishing you well, but if insomnia should happen to strike again, your assistance with reparenting Category:2000 in media onwards to 2027 would be much appreciated. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fayenatic. I will do it tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Fayenatic: see these edits[10]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again. I thought you might make a new template, or at least replace that one! – Fayenatic London 09:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yer welcome, Fayenatic. I will make a new template when the renamings are complete. Right now, a lot of related categories are about to change, so making it now would require multiple revisions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oo yuk, what a job. I've updated your brilliant year in film and TV templates, but Category:2010 in media still holds comics, radio and video game categories using the ~~hated~~ old {{Year by category}}, and has incoming links from renamed siblings due to the same template. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fayenatic, I'll do them in a few mins. Not too bad a job with AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, I think it's all done now. Unfortunately, some of this area of categories is in a mess:

The video gaming chronology categories were screwed up by a massively multi-botched set of out-of-process moves, which I have proposed reverting at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 27#video_gaming.
The comics categories have an perverse category hierarchy: the year categories (e.g. Category:2011 in comics) are titled as topic categories, but they are parented in decade categories (e.g. Category:2010s comics), i.e. in a narrower set category. That is as perverse as making "2011 in politics" as a subcat of "2010s elections".

I am off to do some Gestalt therapy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[11] – Fayenatic London 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More like [12]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just JWB'd through two sets of Year by category, which as you say doesn't take long, and I think it's all done now.[13] Thanks again. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20[edit]

Did you mean to send Template:Rapti-geo-stub and Template:Bheri-geo-stub to WP:TFD instead of WP:CFD? Think they might be in the wrong venue. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: my understanding is that when WP:SFD was abolished in 2012, discussion of deletion of stub templates and categories were both moved to CFD. The box at the top of WP:SFD still says Requests for deletion of stub types should occur at Categories for Discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Operas set in Pakistan[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Operas set in Pakistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166

May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:

New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports!
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my iVote on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#RfC on exceptions to WP:OCAWARD[edit]

BHG, You inadvertently update my iVote instead of your own on the counterproposal, see the last edit. I actually like your v7 even better than v6 though so I'm gonna let it ride but you should update your own vote as well! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, RevelationDirect. I am very sorry about my clumsy error. It's a serious mistake, and you would have every right to be v annoyed about it. Thanks for for being so nice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs and parent stubs[edit]

Hallo, Just to mention... I initially gave María Izquierdo Rojo the {{Spain-MEP-stub}} cat initially but then went for {{Spain-politician-stub}} instead because she was a member of the national parliament for many years and I felt the more general stub template was better as it covered all her notability. You changed it to the MEP stub, which is the more specific one covering part of her notability. I've now added the general one too, though I'm not sure whether there are "rules" about not having a stub template which is a parent/child of another. Not that it matters much. Thanks for finding all the other more specific categories for her too! PamD 07:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD, you are amazing! Whenever I venture into a fresh area,you have been there, doing great work. I hadn't noticed that you had created that article, but I am not surprised that it's part of your fine output.

Yes, you are right about the stub tags. I tend to go for the most specific available and apply the WP:SUBCAT principle, but since there isn't a specific stub type for members of the Cortes Generales, it was best to have both.

BTW, I also used on that page a wee tool which you may find handy: User:BrownHairedGirl/biogdashes.js, which cleans up dashes etc. I use it a lot.

I encountered that page as part of an exercise I have been doing of cleaning up women-politicians-by-century categories. It started with the Oireachtas, where the women were cluttered with categories, and i realised that I could reduce some of the clutter by intersecting Category:Women Teachtaí Dála with the by-century centuries, so that

So I developed some AWB settings to do that, and reduced the category count by at least one. Then I did the same for Category:Women members of Seanad Éireann ... and then I realised that I could also do it for all the women MEP categories, for all member states. The result is visible at Category:Women Members of the European Parliament, where the national subcats are being split by century: see Category:Women Members of the European Parliament. It's not complete yet, but I am most of the way there. And along the way I have encountered a few articles which needed other categorisation tweaks, such as María Izquierdo Rojo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazing yourself, BHG, in the sheer amount of work you do on categories etc! I'm highly inconsistent as to whether I add thorough categories to stubs I sort, or even to stubs I create - especially if I'm working on my phone when it's pretty difficult. For biogs I tend to add the birth/death/living and DEFAULTSORT, using the excellent shortcut {{L}}, and then throw in {{CI}} and move on. (While usually creating incoming redirects and surname page entries too.) And as for hyphens... your .js looks useful but a bit intimidating: I think I'll stick to using what's on my kepboard and leaving it to others to sort out the dashes, sorry. We all have our different approaches to editing, and between the lot of us we're building this encyclopedia albeit very unevenly. Happy Editing, and stay safe.(I though that lockdown would give me lots of time to have a go at some of my "To do sometime" articles, but my brain seems to have gone into semihibernation and I'm not achieving a lot, neither the gardening nor the spring-cleaning nor the article creation, beyond the WiR monthly challenge and the odd random contribution). PamD 11:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operas set in Pakistan has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Operas set in Pakistan has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On television program(me)s[edit]

Hi. I think most of the users arguing against the name changes that refer to the Americanization of Wikipedia do so because they think you are American. Therefore, they think your requested moves are biased. Perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere that you are actually Irish, as your user page says. El Millo (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @El Millo. It's sad to think that editors would make such an assumption without taking a few seconds to check, but I fear that your pessimistic view is probably correct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Brazilian films befoe 1920" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Brazilian films befoe 1920. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#List of Brazilian films befoe 1920 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello, I have a bit request for you, please see these pages : Wang Yihan career statistics & Li Xuerui career statistics. After the consensus to merge the content of these pages to Wang Yihan & Li Xuerui pages respectively, the top above mentioned articles are now empty. Please consider deleting these articles. For evidences, please refer to the Merger proposal portal and consensus in the Talk pages of core {Wang Yihan and Li Xuerui} articles.Thankyou. Zoglophie (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the articles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Li_Xuerui_career_statistics&redirect=no

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wang_Yihan_career_statistics&redirect=no

Edit : Talk:Wang_Yihan#Merger_proposal & Talk:Li_Xuerui#Merger_proposal. url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers

Hi Zoglophie

I see that before you posted, user:GB fan had correctly resolved the problem by redirecting both the career stats articles to the biographies, in these two edits: [14] and [15].

So as far as I can see, it's all sorted.

If for some reason you object to the existence of the redirects, you can nominate them at WP:RFD. But I see no grounds for deletion, and several positive reasons to keep them, so I would advise against that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your advise. Zoglophie (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cat stuff[edit]

Don't know if you've seen the latest by 50.26.172.216, but let me know if it needs mass-rollback. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Thanks, Primefac. It looks a bit silly to me because it's adding {{CatAutoTOC}} indiscriminately, without checking whether the categories are likely to enefit from a TOC. But the only harm it does is cluttering up the various types of lists of edits. So I think that mass rollback wouldn't help much, because it would remove {{CatAutoTOC}} from the pages in the set where it does serve some purpose ... and would generate another long set of edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be being rolled-back for block evasion now. A good thing imo. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, it was all a case of mistaken identity. The edits were fine (tho possibly superfluous), and this wasn't block evasion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Could_someone_mass-rollback_Special:Contributions/50.26.172.216_?. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Higher Broughton F.C. players[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Higher Broughton F.C. players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking your brains, please[edit]

But is this actually a category? serial ^# 11:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: it now exists as a category page, so in that sense it is a category.

But it's a clear fail of WP:UCAT's guidance that

the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia

.

Since this one groups users seeks to disrupt by using their signatures to mimick a cleanup tag, it's a clear no-no. CFD here we come.

Thanks for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YYYY (dis)establishments in one of the Thirteen Colonies[edit]

This is used on Category:1758 disestablishments in New York but it's populating the redirect Category:Disestablishments in New York by year and I can't see how to fix this. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timrollpickering

There is a terminological problem here. Category:Disestablishments in New York by year is a newly-created (by Fuddle) redirect to Category:Disestablishments in New York (state) by year, but in 1758 New York was not a state; it was one of the Thirteen Colonies. Whatever else happens, that redirect should be deleted.

I am looking into possible solutions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 9 May 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked further, and this is all a big mess. Two main problems:

The head article for pre-1776 New York is Province of New York ... but instead of a Category:Province of New York, we have Category:Colonial New York. That needs to be fixed.
The chronology cats for pre-1776 New York are an inconsistent mix of two inappropriate titles:
- Some use "Category: Foo in New York" (which is ambiguous between the city and the colony)
- The others use "Category: Foo in New York (state)", which is an anachronism. It seems to me that the disambiguator "(state)" should not be used for a non-state.

The inconsistency arose out of these July 2017 speedy renamings[16] which processed by Timrollpickering, e.g. in this edit[17]. All clearly done in good faith by due process, and it worked until I created the category header templates expecting consistency.

I think that solution is create that consistency, via mass a CFD with three options:

Option A: rename Category:Colonial New York to Category:Province of New York to match the head article Province of New York, AND rename all the pre-1776 chronology cats to "Category:Foo in the Province of New York"; create new container cats such as Category:Years in the Province of New York, Category:Disestablishments in the Province of New York by year, Category:Decades in the Province of New York, Category:Disestablishments in the Province of New York by decade etc;

Option B: rename all the pre-1776 chronology cats to "Category: Foo in Colonial New York", per the existing Category:Colonial New York; create new container cats such as Category:Years in Colonial New York, Category:Disestablishments in Colonial New York by year, Category:Decades in Colonial New York, Category:Disestablishments in Colonial New York by decade etc;

Option C: rename all the pre-1776 chronology cats to "Category: Foo in New York (state)", and live with the anachronism

Whaddaya think of those options? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fayenatic london, Marcocapelle, and Oculi for your expert thoughts too. Are there are other options to consider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: two comments. First, option A, aligning with the article name, is procedurally more complicated because it would require a rename of the categories of all 13 colonies, because the current "Colonial" format in the categories does not match any of the 13 articles names. Second, if I were you I wouldn't even propose option C as a feasible alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Marcocapelle. Option C wouldn't be my favoured solution, but it is one way to resolve the inconsistency, so i think it's worth putting on the tabel even if nobody backs it.
  I hadn't spotted that issue of the convention of Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies by colony being "colonial Foo", and it's a good point. That seems to me make Option B the best path. I will make it the first option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Option B, to be consistent within Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies by colony (the 13 articles vary in titles). Oculi (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. I'll do a CFD nomination with current "Option B" as the first choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AWB to tag cfd noms[edit]

I asked a year or so ago about how you use AWB in an apparently effortless fashion to tag cfd noms in a variable manner, and even give a complete description in the edit 'summary'; eg this one. You alluded to a module but seemed at the time to be distracted by ephemera, and the module was left hanging. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oculi

For CFD tagging, I wrote a set of skeleton AWB modules which I adapt as needed. (More on modules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Tools and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules).

I haven't published the modules because they are hacker code which needs adjustment with every single usage. The coding language is C##, which I am not skilled at, but in which I taught myself enough to be able to make crude AWB modules for various tasks, including simple jobs like this and some more complex ones such as last years' User:BrownHairedGirl/Election links cleanup.

In some cases, the adjustment needed for each use is a simple plain text replace; in other cases it is one or more regular expressions. If you have at least intermediate-level skills with regexes, and are happy to use them within C##, then I'd be happy to share the code.

But per WP:BEANS, I don't want to share it to be used by editors who aren't able to make the code adjustments themselves. I don't want to have either:

Editors running amok with a misconfigured adaptation of the module, saying "but I used BHG's code", and me caught up in a drama
Me turning into a C## helpdesk. Apart from the time issues, I am nowhere near skilled enough at C## to be sure that I would be giving good advice; I hack and test, and lack the overview and experience to be an effective teacher

So if you want a copy on that yer-on-yer-own-at-yer-own-risk basis, then I'll happily email it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understood the T & C and would be happy to receive the module by email. I will endeavour not to run amok. Oculi (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: email sent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of you care to tag Category:Media companies established in the 1700s onwards, and any year categories to be found within them? – Fayenatic London 10:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Fayenatic. I'm on it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Fayenatic: listed[18] at CFDS, and tagged[19].
I will now do the rest of Category:Mass media companies by time. Also pinging Oculi, to note that this is underway.
FL, some template work will be needed too. I will do that when the tagging is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done the remaining subcats of Category:Mass media companies by time. Listed at CFDS[20], and all tagged.[21].
Pinging @Fayenatic & Oculi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dependably excellent – thanks as usual.

By the way, where does this renaming to "mass media" end? I would be inclined to leave "media people" categories, because that sounds like a real-life phrase. – Fayenatic London 21:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, I share that inclination, though not strongly. "Media people" is more familiar usage, but "mass media people" has the benefit of consistency and a little more precision. If it came to a CFD, I'd make a weak oppose or stay neutral. What does Oculi think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I was meaning to address the question to Oculi as well. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another point on media categories: let's try to catch any categories within the Wikipedia files hierarchy that are in the Media categories being renamed. E.g. I spotted Category:Biology images which was wrongly in a media category, and needed to be moved up rather than into a "mass media" category. It's not enough to use Petscan for the intersection of Mass media and Wikipedia files, because that has valid overlaps, e.g. television images. I've checked JJMC89 bot III's contribs since 7 May and only found one instance of the text "images" or "files". Perhaps if I repeat that in a couple of days, it will find any more cases of file categories currently parented in (mass) media. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic, I got a few other things on the go, and haven't the energy to help with that one. Sorry.

But your approach sounds good. I find that most such tasks can be accomplished by a mix of Petscan and AWB: use Petscan to get a rough list including false positives, then save the Petscan output and feed it into AWB in pre-parse mode. Set up AWB to skip the false positives, and see what's left. Sometimes it needs multiple passes, but I can usually get a lot of cleanup done that.

I am not sure how closely JWB mimics AWB ... but if it can a) load a list which you have saved on your PC; b) has a pre-parse mode; and c) can skip pages which match a regex ... then that's all you need. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing[edit]

Well. The discussion has been a massive waste of time. They weren't even in favor of standardizing in the first place. Maybe there should be an RfC on standardizing before deciding on a specific term. El Millo (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, @El Millo, but don't panic. The discussion has not been closed yet. See my reply[22] to your latest comment at CFD.

Your research and mine has shown that:

We do have a commonly used term "television&shows" to replace the ENGVAR pair of "television&programs" & "television&programmes"
Neither programs nor programmes is globally acceptable, but shows is.
"Television shows" is not a slangy or informal term. It is widely used in scholarly sources.

The only potential obstacle to a rename to the common term would arise if it was demonstrate that "shows" had a different scope to "program(me)s". But that has already been dealt with: the evidence of dictionary definitions posted by Historyday01 clearly shows that most major dictionaries treat the terms as synonymous.

All we need is a closer who weighs consensus properly, according to policy. Most closers do a fine job of that; but if someone screws up, then there is always WP:DRV.

That CFD has been a bit of a nightmare because of the actions of one editor whose extreme verbosity seems inversely proportional to the grasp of policy and their comprehension of evidence. But an experienced closer will know how to diplomatically work around that.

And there is no need for an RFC; MOS:COMMONALITY represents broad community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way it closes in favor of the rename. It'll most likely be no consensus. There's not enough votes in support to do the move. El Millo (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, see WP:NOTAVOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it's supposed to be, but that isn't always followed and this doesn't look like a case in which it will. El Millo (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, I have more faith in closers. Sure, they are not infallible, but that is why we have WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Nugent Talk page[edit]

Hi, If you have a moment you might see the message/query I left on that page. Aineireland (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aineireland, please can you post a link? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, have no idea what that means or how to do it. 2001:BB6:9565:DB58:5C51:E641:CD94:EB02 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penny finally dropped Talk: Liz Nugent Aineireland (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox stuff[edit]

Hi I was pressing random article and I ended up on an article called Apache Apex. I went to the history and there was a edit from you from almost EXACTLY a year ago, 5/16/20. It's funny because you have so many edits that I have seen you in the history of many articles I go to. Your edit description was,"Navbox was moved in September 2018, replaced: {{Apache}} → {{Apache Software Foundation}}". This did not make sense because there was no edit from September of 2018, so I was just curious on what that means. I am a relatively new user and I did not even know that a Navbox existed until I compared the edits. I don't know if I am supposed to write random questions of your talk page, im sorry if im not supposed too, but I was just curious on what that means. Because it looked like you changed the name of the box and so if you change the name then it gets deleted? Sorry if this is long, I am just asking to try to improve my editing skills, like catching more errors. NamelessLameless (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove those 2 navboxs. NamelessLameless (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NamelessLameless

Sorry, but there are too many questions there for me to answer in detail, so this will be quick:

I have disabled displayed display of the navboxes on this page by wrapping the relevant text in "nowiki" tags: see WP:NOWIKI for an explanation.

The Sept 2018 edit to which I referred is this: [23].

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks NamelessLameless (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1943 in Nevada[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1943 in Nevada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruddington Factory Halt railway station[edit]

Please be aware that Short Description goes first see MOS:ORDER. I notice on at least a couple of your edits you have inserted text above the short description. Regards palmiped^Talk 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@palmiped, any such changes are being applied by WP:AWB's WP:GENFIXES, and not by any conscious choice of mine. So far as I am aware, it makes no difference, because the short description is not displayed. So even if AWB hasn't caught up with those changes to MOS:ORDER, I don't think it's a big enough deal to merit disabling the GENFIXES.

I just checked Ruddington Factory Halt railway station (a link and a diff would have helped), and it looks like the issue may not be GENFIXES, but rather with AWB's tagging of the article as an orphan, which may be applied after GENFIXES. I just tested the article in AWB without saving, and it didn't change the order, so that's probably it.

But the real issue here is that AWB correctly tagged the article as having a problem. So it seems to me that instead of worrying about where the cleanup tag was applied (a point AFAICS which makes zero difference to readers or software), your energies might by be better employed adding links to the article so that the {{Orphan}} tag can be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamilton Intermediates F.C. players has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Hamilton Intermediates F.C. players has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jellyman (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station categories[edit]

How much more do you have to do? Your edits are swamping my watchlist, to the extent that the last 1,000 changes (the most that it will display) only go back 80 minutes, it's difficult for me to keep up with what other people are doing since if I don't check requently enough, their edits disappear off the bottom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: about 7,000 more to do. Would it help if I flagged them as minor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you did them as a bot. There are poor editors who routinely select "This is a minor edit" for precisely the things I do need to check. I don't want to sit up all night checking my watchlist every hour or so just to catch the 1% of edits that aren't yours, before they vanish forever. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEATBOT, "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive" ... and nobody suggests that there is any substantive flaw in these edits.

I wouldn't mind making this a bot job, but BRFA has high latency. For example, there has been no BAG response to BHGbot 6 after 8 days, and BHGbot 5 took 7 days. Hanging around indefinitely for a response is more disruptive to my workflow than doing a lot of clicking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not been a short time - it's been about three hours: so far as I can tell, you began amending articles at 18:23 (UTC) having previously set up the categories, which being new, didn't swamp my watchlist.

What about my workflow? Also, WP:DEADLINE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBURO. I don't see any pressing reason to have piles of work which I document so that I don't forget the nuances, and then leave it for weeks for approval. I get far more done by just doing the task, and then moving on. I'm sorry about the few hours of disrupting your watchlist, but it's better than the job not being done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: here's a simple win-win solution. The watchlist software has improved a lot, and you can now filter out AWB edits from your watchlist. If you do that until this job is done, you'll catch those other edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the job is now done, since my watchlist stopped flooding around 14:15 yesterday (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: the British stations are indeed all done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line break coding[edit]

Hello BHG,

The changes you made today to Port Pirie Junction railway station included changes to my line-break coding.

I had been acting on some authoritative advice:

"As of April 2019,^[update] the rather common form   also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being. Please correct invalid occurrences – such as ,  , or  – to   as you encounter them, though preferably as a part of a more substantive edit."

Has this changed? If so, what is the source, please?

I'm happy to change (including retrospectively in my more recently written/amended articles).

Best wishes,

Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@SCHolar44: The   and   tags are equally valid in HTML 5, but the first format (without the slash) is not correctly processed by some of the syntax highlighters that our editors use. So AWB's genfixes will add the slash. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: it's not actually part of WP:GENFIXES, tho I think it should be. It's a wee tweak which I try to add when I'm doing a big AWB run.

@SCHolar44, thanks for your message. But as you can see from the diff[24], the version that I found had three instances of  , which doesn't follow the guidace tat you quoted from WP:LINEBREAK. My edit corrected that to  . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:@Redrose64: Zounds! I'll have to use the Captain Mainwaring excuse: "Glad you spotted my deliberate error there, Sergeant Wilson." Ahem, yes, I looked at it so quickly that I got it 180° the wrong way, and it wasn't "my" line-break coding. In fact I don't appear to have edited that article at all -- I have been working on a major upgrade to the six Port Pirie railway station articles and hadn't uploaded the revision of that particular one yet.

Many thanks to you both for updating my knowledge about line breaks. I do appreciate it. Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, SCHolar44. We all have a bit of Captain Mainwaring in us, and the best of us can acknowledge that, as you did humorously.

When I was a kid, I loved a cartoon which showed a surgeon finishing his surgery and looking up at the surrounding medical students: "Did anyone spot my deliberate error?" Ordinary mortals had no access to photocopiers in those days, so I tried to reproduce it ... but a German friend pointed out years later with characteristic subtlety, my drawing skills are "like a drunken pig". Hopefully no trace remains of my attempt.

The linebreaks thing is no big deal. It's actually quite trivial, and easily fixed mechanically, so don't worry about this. If it's of any help, I have built it into a dash-fixing script I use a lot: User:BrownHairedGirl/biogdashes.js, which I forked years ago from a script developed by User:GregU. You may find that helpful.

The important thing is that you are doing substantive work on actual content. Good on you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the dash-fixing script; new territory for me. Thank you for your kind remarks. Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with Japan train station articles[edit]

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I've noticed all the work you are doing on the Japan train station articles. Thank you very much for your time and effort! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nihonjoe. That's very kind of you.

Category:Railway stations in Japan by year of opening is now fully-populated, i.e. with all the articles on Railway stations in Japan which are categorised with a year opening. There are 8,494 of them. That's very impressive coverage.

A further 595 articles on Railway stations in Japan have no category for year of opening, but my AWB tools can't do anything with them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do: Some like Chigasaki Station have the opening year buried in the text or the station infobox. Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999, I just used Petscan to find the Japanese rail station articles which have a year of opening in the infobox, but no year-of-opening category: 107 stations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

Thanks for helping with categorising all those Japanese railway articles. I've tried to always categorise the opening date, but there was still so much to do. Nihonjoe beat me to it, but have a brownie anyway! RubenSchade (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RubenSchade. A treat to accompany my morning tea break!

All I have done is to use WP:AWB to diffuse the articles from e.g. Category:Railway stations opened in 1933 to Category:Railway stations in Japan opened in 1933. I could do that only because the articles were already categorised in a by-year category ... so all I did was a quick mechanical polish on other editors's hard work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion for barnstar categories[edit]

You're invited to join a rename discussion for barnstar categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computing kitten[edit]

I liked your proposal on changing the Computer science by time categories to Computing by time. I think that was a very keen observation. Thanks for doing that!

BthompsonHV (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @BthompsonHV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

I would have fixed this but I couldn't figure out what they were trying to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utu Under Family, there's errant code. Probably a simple fix too complicated for my simple mind lol. --Armorbeast (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Armorbeast, they had placed the wikilink code in the file name, rather than in the caption. Fixed.[25] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armorbeast (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by A by B[edit]

Did we sort out anything on this? You seem to have created Category:Categories by country and century and Category:Novels by country by century recently. We have Category:Television by country by century, Category:Television by country by decade but Category:Television by country and year (and yet Category:Television by year by country). I personally prefer Television by country by year: (Television by country) by year (all the contents should end with 'by year'). Oculi (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, I'm not sure that we reached a conclusion on "by A and B" vs "by A by B".

Like you, I prefer "by A by B", where all the contents should end with "by B". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian railway station categories[edit]

Hi your new ones are populating a load of Year establishments in Russia categories - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for the list. The problem is the country was "the Russian Empire" then. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Timrollpickering. I know about that, but for various reasons it was easier to populate the categories this way, then rename them afterwards. I will sort it out later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The categories have just been sent to the working page. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timrollpickering. I am on the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As far as I can see, it's all sorted now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(Dis)estCatUSstateCentury[edit]

This one's creating problems for a move of several categories in Category:17th-century establishments in the United States to Category:17th-century establishments in the Thirteen Colonies. Is there any way to override "in the United States"? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering@ The solution is don't use it ... because those categories are not in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done in these edits/[26] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:

New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance
Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports
Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe

Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Category:Articles containing Panjabi-language text has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:Articles containing Panjabi-language text has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Railway station categories in Sydney Australia[edit]

Following your changes over the last few days I noticed there are two categories (not caused by your changes) in Sydney [27] which covers conventional train stations and [28] which covers Sydney Metro stations with the second a child of the first. There were a number of errors which hopefully I have corrected this morning. But there are two stations including Chatswood railway station which are correctly included in both and there will be more in the future. With such stations included in both should the two categories be at the same level instead of one being a child of the other? Fleet Lists (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleet Lists, you are right that articles such as Chatswood railway station (which is both a metro and mainline station) is correctly included in both. This exposes a slight glitch in WP:SUBCAT, which doesn't adequately cover this situation of partial diffusion, where an article belongs both in the distinguished subcat and in its parent. (Pinging @Marcocapelle, DexDor, Fayenatic london, and Oculi: for their thoughts on this).

Category:Sydney Metro stations is definitely a subset of Category:Railway stations in Sydney, so it is correct to have it as a subcat thereof.

This could in theory be resolved by splitting all rail categories between heavy rail and light rail, so that Category:Railway stations in Sydney became a container for two subcats Category:Sydney Metro stations and subset of Category:Heavy rail stations in Sydney. But in practice, I don't think that the distinction between light and heavy rail transport is clear enough to make such a split practical. WP:TRAINS has a lot of expert editors who could give a much better-informed comment on that than I can, but passenger_rail_terminology#Heavy_rail seems to support my ill-informed view that the distinction is too fuzzy and too variable between countries to allow for objective categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities which are both applied. Either the metro stations is a subcategory of train stations (apparently here in Sydney, and for example also in Barcelona), or the metro stations category is a sibling of train stations category (for example in Madrid and Bucharest). Neither is necessarily wrong. There is also the matter of local language, for example in the United States the light rail stations would definitely be a subcategory, while in mainland Europe it is more likely that metro stations would be perceived as a sibling category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A thought experiment: Foobar Airport has a metro station, but wp doesn't have an article about the metro station. The airport shouldn't be categorized in the metro stations category. Note: Some editors might want to create a redirect at Foobar Airport Metro Station in order to make the metro stations category complete, but IMO that that would be wrong (or at least unnecessary) as a category is a list of wp articles not a list of things (cf lists).

If there's an article (primarily) about a (heavy) railway station that also has a metro station (e.g. Liverpool Lime Street railway station) then (following the same logic as the airport example) that article should not be in the metro stations category. Chatswood isn't such a clear example, but I think (historically) it's primarily a (heavy) railway station. Applying strict categorization like that an article shouldn't be categorized as both a (heavy) railway station and a metro station and the SUBCAT issue is solved. DexDor^(talk) 18:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that, DexDor. If the article on Foobar Airport or Foobar Mainline Rail Station includes coverage of the co-located Foobar Metro station, then Foobar Airport or Foobar Mainline Rail Station should be in the metro stations category. It's a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For an example, see London Victoria station, which is correctly categorised as both a heavy rail station and a London Underground station. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if the airport article also mentions that the airport has a police station, a control tower, a radar tower, a car park, a security fence (and dozens of other things) - would you put it in the categories for all those things (and then remove that category tag if the material is split off to a separate article)? DexDor^(talk) 18:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor, just apply WP:DEFINING. Also being a rail station sure is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about DEFINING so perhaps a better example is an article about a hospital that begins "Foobar Hospital is a general hospital ... Its facilities include the country's main centre for cancer treatment and research, a memory clinic ...". Arguably, cancer is a defining characteristic of the hospital (it passes the reasonable-to-mention-in-lede rule), but (IMO) the hospital shouldn't be in Category:Cancer. If the hospital was categorized in that way then when a separate article is created about the cancer centre the article about the hospital would (presumably) be removed from the cancer category, but that's not how categories should work; whether the cancer centre has its own article or not doesn't affect the topic of the hospital article. Whenever, there's a situation where an article is removed from a category because "that category is now carried by another article" it shows that the category is being (mis)used to create a list of (real world) things, not being used to create a list of articles (about a particular topic). DexDor^(talk) 07:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:SUBCAT misses this situation, and IMHO it is worth changing it to do so. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category questions[edit]

Speaking of categorising by geography and year on the railway stations CSD, is there a tool out there which would help me search for articles that have been tagged as say "Buildings in Ireland", but not "Buildings built in *"? Figure you would know if anyone knows. Thanks in advance! SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, by "tagged", do you mean "categorised"?

If so, then WP:PETSCAN: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/

Note that constructing searches takes some care and precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. Thank you very much! SportingFlyer T·C 15:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, SportingFlyer. Petscan is a brilliant tool, when it's actually available, which for the last month or three has been a sadly intermittent state. Best time to try is mid-morning UTC (about 6am to 11 am), when the Americans are asleep and the Europeans are still getting their caffeine fixes. It seems to load up heavily thereafter.

It is very powerful, and once you get your head around it, you can do amazingly complex things with it. But the main thing to watch out for is the depth of category recursion ... esp since many categories are not "clean", so you often need to add negative categories. One of the worst cases I have dealt with was subcats of Irish people, because Category:Kennedy family was a subcat of Category:People from County Wexford, and Category:Kennedy family includes Category:John F. Kennedy, which in turns includes Category:Presidency of John F. Kennedy and all it subcats. So my searches for Irish people by county were pulling in tens of thousands of articles on US politics ... which led to lot of WTF curses from me until I tracked down the glitch.

That was an extreme case, but there are many smaller ones. For example, when I was working on the GB railway stations, I thought I had gotten the category trees clean, but then found that my list included Gare du Nord in Paris. That was because Category:Railway stations served by Eurostar was a subset of GB, even tho it included stations on both sides of the English channel ... so I had to create Category:Railway stations in Great Britain served by Eurostar and remove Category:Railway stations served by Eurostar from GB (see [29]). You will almost certainly find lots of such cases, usually where you are least expecting them. Sometimes it can take an hour or two of fixing the parenting of categories before Petscan gives me clean results.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl/Archive, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Success[edit]

Congratulations, you did it! El Millo (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s has been closed[30] as rename to "shows".

@El Millo, yes I am pleased about the outcome, but that was not my work alone; it was achieved by the work of everyone who stuck to policy and collected evidence. Your evidence collection was a very important part of that, and it was a great pleasure to see how how rigorous you were.

At times that discussion had me very depressed. I was not down feeling about the possible outcome, because in the big scheme of things the naming on en.wp categories isn't a big deal; I was feeling down because of the sheer volume of contributions by editors who repeatedly demonstrated no interest in policy or evidence, and who repeatedly failed to critique their own stances. If Wikipedia is going to survive into the future, it needs to find ways that voices with so little of substance to say are exercised a lot less, and that a much higher value is placed on critical thinking.

But this time at least, the closers wade through the dross and got to the core. Didn't I tell you to keep faith?

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did, and I'm very happy indeed that higher value was placed on critical thinking. El Millo (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, it's now at WP:Move review/Log/2020 May#WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Television_program(me)s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it again, apparently. El Millo (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello, BHG. I hope you have been keeping well. I discovered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia World and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Lorraine that an unknown number of articles on Wikipedia are using archived links to this website, which the more I look at, seems clearly self-published and not reliable. Here is a good example of the archived source in action, and this is where the self-publishing is described. The publisher was a pageant fan with no listed credentials and given the website is defunct, it's not going to ever improve. Is there a formal way we can get this website invalidated as a reliable source, which Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants lists under its "Resources" section? Thank you for any help or guidance you can provide. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHGbot error[edit]

Hi BHG, hope you are well. Just a quick question, do you happen to know what happened with this edit on Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Not sure what would of caused it. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3, oops! No, I don't know what would have caused that, but it is clearly a serious malfunction. Many thanks to you for altering me, and to User:LordApofisu for reverting[31] the bot's error.

I have stopped the bot until I can find the cause and fix it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuK3, that was weird. I fed the page back into the bot, and it didn't repeat the error. The edit to the same page was fine.[32]

So I have no idea how it happened, which is annoying.

I have added some safety checks to the AWB module[33], and will keep an eye open for any further glitches. Thanks again for your help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up! There was another bot edit before yours so I thought it might be related to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1990s Philippine television seasons[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1990s Philippine television seasons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 21:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020[edit]

From the editor: Meltdown May?

News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

Featured content: Weathering the storm

Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Denmark–Togo relations[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Denmark–Togo relations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 01:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update him[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolis_Lauk%C5%BEemis# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.101.182 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Nationality television series debuts or endings by decade category[edit]

Hi! It seems that the above template has depopulated Category:Scottish television by decade and created the red cat Category:Television in Scotland by decade?

I noticed this on Special:WantedCategories Gjs238 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gjs238.

The problem was that the rest of the "nationality television by decade" categories had been speedily renamed to "television in Countryname by decade", and Template:Nationality television series debuts or endings by decade category/core was updated[34] to reflect this … but Scotland had been omitted from the list, so the revised template populated the redlinked Category:Television in Scotland by decade.

I fixed that by boldly renaming the category[35], and also did the same for Wales.[36] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]