User talk:BrownHairedGirl

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This talk page was last edited (diff) on 30 May 2021 at 18:07 by 2A02:1205:34E0:C0A0:C18:9DDB:194B:AABF (talk • contribs • logs)

Adding templates

Hi. I noticed that you were adding templates to articles which are linked from the templates. One such example is: edit. In this case, this article is a generic term and the addition of the template does not make sense, despite the article being linked from the template. What are your thoughts? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi DaxServer, and thanks for being so eagle-eyed.

I try to exclude such generic terms, but it seems that I missed that one. So I have removed it.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! Could you add the templates to Navboxes if present, like here :) -- DaxServer (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @DaxServer, but I can't. AWB doesn't do that automatically, and there are far too many additions to manually tweak them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wish it could! -- DaxServer (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer if that was possible, then I'd do it, to follow existing layout.

But {{Navboxes}} is wildly overused, and I'd like to see it restricted to cases where there are at least 7 or 8 navboxes, because hiding a smaller set of navboxes is an impediment to navigation with no help to readability ... so I'd like AWB to remove it when there are fewer uses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Hello! Would you kindly add template {{Portalbar|India|Aviation}} to Airports and related topics in India related articles? This would be helpful, that is of course if AWB has automation for it. Else, I would try to do it. If possible "Topics of x" template is helpful. One example is Dabolim Airport. Thanks for your much help :) -- DaxServer (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I'm sorry, but ArbCom in its most glorious and eternal infinite wisdom forbids me from even discussing this with you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. May the Fourth be with You! And the Force, of course :) Thanks for the templates you added so far!! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft Declined; The Subject is the Head Coach of Professional Football Club, FC Kolhapur City

Help in getting this draft Verified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muzamil_Mahmood The Subject is a professional Asian football confederation, B licensed Coach and has good search results. Darzubair (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, @Darzubair, but that's not at all my area of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Mahmoud Darwish has been nominated for deletion

Category:Songs written by Mahmoud Darwish 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. Richhoncho (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Categories in sandbox

Apologies, forgot about these when I pasted text about Sonia Bassey back into my sandbox (in case the page was suddenly deleted). I will try to remember about inactivating these commands in future.--MerielGJones (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @MerielGJones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ambassadors of China to Eswatini has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ambassadors of China to Eswatini has been nominated for renaming. 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Paco Paco songs has been nominated for deletion

Category:Paco Paco songs 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. Richhoncho (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Luo (Kenya and Tanzania)-language text

A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Luo (Kenya and Tanzania)-language text indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1020737906

I usually use {{userpage blanked|reason=and the draft content has been moved to [[]] per [[WP:FAKEARTICLE]]}} as might provide slightly more information. Just letting you know in case you didn't know about the template; your practice is probably fine as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @1234qwer1234qwer4. That method wouldn't suit my workflow so well, and its text would be untrue. But I will add WP:FAKEARTICLE to my notes in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work!

I just edited Nicola Sturgeon, and lo and behold, the previous edit was by you! Thank you for sticking around on Wikipedia even after what the ArbCom did to you, and I hope all of us appreciate that nothing on Wikipedia really matters. :) Egroeg5 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Bless you, @Egroeg5:. That is very kind of you.

It was the kindness of so many other editors that persuaded me to stay on after I was done over by ArbCom. This means a lot to me --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rayment

Time to remove the tags? Srnec (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds, @Srnec?

I wasn't a fan of adding the tags, but I accepted that while Rayment's site was remarkably accurate, it did not meet the criteria of WP:RS.

Now, nearly a decade later, Rayment's site has long gone. And we have an alternative for most periods, in the shape of https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/

So the uses of Template:Rayment (and its siblings) should continue to be replaced, but so long as they are used, they should be tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

On the grounds that since the tags were placed, it survived a TFD. Srnec (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wales AMs

Hi BHG, I notice you created Category:Wales AMs 2021–, though since 2020 the elected members have been known as Members of the Senedd, or MSs. Maybe it will be quicker to change if you can request a speedy rename, as the creator, to Category:Wales MSs 2021–. Diolch/Thanks. Sionk (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, I thought of that before I created the cat, but decided to keep consistency for now. My priority was to populate the cat; its title can be changed whenever.

If the 2021 cat is renamed, then the 2016 cat should also be renamed. And it may not be speediable.

So I reckoned that either way a full discussion would be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'll raise it at CfD then. Welsh Parliament members were AMs until 2020, but they are definitely now MSs. Sionk (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Sionk. But if you do a CFD, please do both cats together. No point in going over it twice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That will be for someone else. As I said, they were AMs between 2016 and 2020, for the vast majority of the previous term. Sionk (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_9#Category:Wales_AMs_2021– Sionk (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a pity, @Sionk. I'd have preferred to be able to support the nom. but I have opposed[2] that cherrypicking of policy. Further discussion should be at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Template question

BHG,

Would it be possible for you to create a Newspaper Establishments and Newspaper disestablishments templates something along the lines of Companies established in the year/disestablished in the year? I ask you because I know you have done template work around WP and that you recently did work on or created Newspaper establishment categories. I've created two myself and spent time filling some of those already created. Thanks in advance for any help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi WilliamJE

Yes it would. I am currently busy with the Scottish+Welsh elections, but I hope that later in the week I will get back to templating, and I will put that on the list.

I already have some stuff in draft, so I hope it wont be a hard job.

If I don't get back to you by the end of the week, please can you gimme a poke?

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BHG. Take your time. You can ping me here again or post to my talk page after you make the templates....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

IndiGo Airlines wiki page - Fleet

Hello! I hope you are doing fine.

Since you were the last person to edit the wiki page for IndiGo, I wanted to let you know that the airline is planning to induct four Airbus A321P2F. The airline is expecting to receive its first A321 freighter by June of 2021 and start its freighter operations soon after that. I would highly appreciate it if you add/direct this to a person who can add this into the fleet section of the airline's Wikipedia page. (I would have done it by myself however I don't know how to do it and am just figuring out Wikipedia's editing side :sweat-smile:)

Source for this: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/pandemic-effect-indigo-to-induct-freighters-in-its-fleet/articleshow/82183050.cms

Thank you and good day! --Hari.shreyas08 (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Hari.shreyas08:

Thanks for your message, but you got the wrong person.

I have no substantive interest or expertise in the topic. My edits to IndiGo were both technical: one to add a category[3] and one to clean up formatting[4].

I suggest you post comments on Talk:IndiGo, where you are more likely to find other interested editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please give us a chance to catch up

Hello BHG. You've been on a spree and now there are over 120 articles in the Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations. It is going to take some time to empty the cat so if you can hold off on adding anymore tags for a bit it will give the few of us who work on them a chance to catch up. You see it only takes a second to add the tag but it can take several minutes (or longer in some cases) to format the refs. Add to that the fact that other editors will be adding articles to the cat as well and I'm not sure how many days it will take to get to all of these. Anything you can do will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, I had meant to leave you a note about my AWB-assisted tagging, so thank for coming here to answer the question I was going to ask: am I overdoing it?

I will just keep on list-making for now, but not tagging until the backlog clears.

Thanks again for all your good work on formatting refs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

For me when the cat gets up around 30 I know its going to take a hefty chunk out of my editing time if not all of it. I know they will still be there when I get back but it is nice if I can empty the cat and then do any newly added ones when I return to editing. One thing you might consider - if an article only has one or two bare urls (more than that becomes a drag on your editing time so don't worry about those) you could click on them to see if they still work. If they do then you can leave the article for us to add the cite template. If they don't then you can mark them with a {{dead link}} tag and not use the linkrot template at all. Now this is just a suggestion and you are under no obligation to add this to your work load at all. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD, I have been thinking some more about this, and want to run my thoughts past you.

AFAIK, all other cleanup tags are added simply when there is a problem that needs to be cleaned up. Sometimes the issue is resolved promptly and the tag is removed promptly, and sometimes the problem remain unfixed for years.

That may mean that few pages are tagged, or it may mean lots of pages have the tag. What drives the tagging is simply whether editors identify a problem, so the number of currently-tagged pages is simply a measure of the balance between the problem being identified and the problem being resolved.

For example, {{Citation needed}} is on over 400,000 pages in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Many other tags have similarly large backlogs, while some are cleared more thoroughly, e.g. Category:Unreferenced BLPs, where the backlog is not too horrible.

I can't see any reason to treat {{Cleanup bare URLs}} any differently. I have scanned Template:Cleanup bare URLs and Template talk:Cleanup bare URLs, and I don't see any guidance to hold back from tagging, or even any discussion suggesting restraint.

So my inclination now is to finish my AWB run, and tag the more than 1,000 pages identified in my AWB run, and currently awaiting tagging.

However I am conscious of all your good work filling the refs, and I don't want to discourage you by swamping your in-tray. So it occurred to me that I could hold off until the end of the month, and then tag them all on 31 May. That would leave a backlog in Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from May 2021, but thereafter Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from June 2021 would include only the latest additions. I hope that would be a win-win solution for everyone.

How does that sound to you? I would also welcome input from anyone else watching this talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from but, here are a few things to consider. Your comparisons to other tags like citation needed tags is an apples to oranges situation. There are three tools - refills, reflinks and citer - that help to put bare urls in cite templates. That is a big part of why the work that category creates can be taken care of in ways the other ones cannot. Now there are a few few bare urls that have to be done manually but all cn tags have to be done by hand. The BLP needing references is also a different situation as my experience shows that there are many many more bios that need sourcing than those that have been tagged. Also, please remember there are other articles being tagged for bare urls all the time so it will be far more than 1000 in the intray. Even though you have a way to split them by the month they will all still be in the main bare url category. If you feel the need to do this then fine. It does mean that, for my own peace of mind, I will be retiring from fixing bare urls so it may take a long time for many of those articles to get fixed. I have been considering moving on to other tasks for awhile anyway. My apologies because I am sure this response will make you angry with me yet again. You are a good (nay great) editor who does a lot for the project and I am aware that my request is problematic for you. Best regards and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Follow up thought. Is there any chance that you can create a page where you list the ones that need fixing without tagging them with the template? That way they can be worked on a few at a time while the main cat just has the new ones that get added daily. I know this may not seem like much of a difference for you but I think that those of us who work on that main cat take some pride on emptying it as quickly as possible. I understand if this doesn't work for you. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: that could be done, but it seems to me to be pointless. The benefits of tagging the article are:

1. there is a visible note on the article that it needs fixing, so that any passing editor can take action
2. it is automatically categorised by the month when the tag was added
3. when the refs are fixed and the tag removed, the article is removed from the category

Your suggestion of creating a separate list has many disadvantages:

1. No visible tag on the page
2. No categorisation of the article
3. Nobody knows where the list is
4. No automatic removal from the list

So, no I won't make a list because I think it would be almost entirely useless.

As above, I don't want to impede your work ... but I don't understand why your desire to clear a category cannot be satisfied by clearing the current monthly category. Please can you explain that?

BTW, I am sorry that you think I am angry with you. I am not at all angry; just puzzled why you object to normal tagging practice. It seems to me that a clever structure already exists to allow you work from a category which can reasonably be cleared every day, and I don't understand why you want to work instead off the catch-all category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you are puzzled because you don't have a sense of the work involved. The monthly category is meaningless since they are also in the main category as I already mentioned. AFAIK no one is monitoring them by the month. Waiting until May 1 does not make any difference to the work involved so you might as well run your program now. The number of editors monitoring the cat is small. I hope they don't get put off by not being able to empty the cat. In your first post you mention "I will just keep on list-making for now" but now you say you wont make a list. For the last four or five years monitoring the cat was okay because it was manageable chunks and now it won't be. I know that this is just me having a crummy attitude. Apologies for that. I do hope others will continue to fix them :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It does make me miss the days when we could start an edit-a-thon :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: the monthly categories exist already. Why on earth do you not want to use them? What exactly is the problem?

There are thousands of articles which have this problem, and which could be tagged now (or as I propose, at the end of the month). That way, every editor who views one of those pages would see the problem and could fix it.

You say you'd like an edit-a-thon. But the point of cleanup tags is that they facilitate a sort of decentralised edit-a-thon, in which there needs be no central co-ordination.

Sadly, it seems to me that your opposition to that cleanup is as you say "a crummy attitude". (I wouldn't choose that phrasing, but I can't disagree with your description). You have a way to continue exactly as you do now, just by using a different category. It's a very imple, tiny change to your workflow ... yet you prefer to ask that identified problems go untagged and therefore unfixed. That's very odd and very sad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

So you say "I don't want to discourage you by swamping your in-tray" and then you tell me that is exactly what you are going to do. If you can find editors who use the monthly cats then good deal. It is not a tiny change and your claim that I want things to go unfixed as an insult to someone who has worked so hard and diligently over the years. I am a volunteer getting paid exactly nothing as are you. There are plenty of other task for me to work on. As i said you might as well run your program now. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: my initial reply about swamping was before I realised that the monthly cat provided a win-win solution.

Of course I know that you have worked hard over the years which is why I have tried hard to find a win-win solution. But unless you want to explain to me why you won't use the monthly cats (and why it is not a tiny change), then sadly I can only conclude that you are being perverse.

I have asked several times for that explanation, and this will be my last time of asking.

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Categories Mass media companies established in

BHG,

I've noticed you added 'Companies established in year' to these pages. There is only one problem. These categories are already categorized entertainment companies established in. So that's overcategorization since Entertainment companies is a subcategory of Companies. I'm kind of lukewarm towards mass media being subcategorized entertainment. Before I have over 150 redlights popping up on your page as I revert the companies established you added, I'd like your thoughts on this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE, please can you make it easier for me to respond by posting some links, as requested in the big editnotice above?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Example Mass Media Companies established in 1942[5]. Note it is subcategorized both Entertainment companies and Companies established.

Your edit adding 'Companies established in 1942'[6].

I discovered other problems with categorizing (Not your fault BTW) while getting these links for you. Some of which involve a template which will need tweeking. You're burdened with other things right now, so I'll hold that for later....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, WilliamJE. They make discussion much easier ... tho it's most helpful to add them as wikilinks, e.g. Category:Mass media companies established in 1942 rather than as external [7]. Wikilinking them creates a linked title, which is much more clear and much easier to use.

I added the parent [[Category:Companies established in {{title year}}]] to all subcats of Category:Mass media companies by year of establishment in an AWB run, in accordance with WP:SUBCAT. The reason is that not all mass media companies are primarily dedicated to entertainment: e.g. newspapers are not primarily about entertainment. So in my view, this is one of the exceptions allowed by WP:SUBCAT.

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

BHG, Newspapers are not categorized Mass Media Companies. They are categorized Publications or Newspapers established in. See Category:Publications established in 1909 or Category:Newspapers established in 1909. Take for instance Category:Mass media companies established in 2008. Newspapers or Publications aren't a subcategory or category entry. Cox Media Group is. One of its past newspapers The Palm Beach Post isn't. Cox has other holdings, including television stations BTW. Mass media companies establishment pages are overcategorized by being in both Entertainment and Companies established....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE, are you trying to tell me that a newspaper is not a type of mass media? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm telling you the way they are categorized....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: so they are not already categorised under mass media, but they should be. That's one of of the issues to address when I start templating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps help or a favor. God knows

I'd like to seek your help in making my first FL here. I've already did it on Urdu Wikipedia but please share your ideas about List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. Might be out of our topic arena, but "advises" would be helpful because you're "Brown Haired Girl". Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: thanks for your help with the page move[8] just now.

I am not sure that I am the best person to ask about featured lists, because I have only ever made one such list: List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland. But I did learn a bit in that process, so I will see if I can help.

It's now way past my bedtime, and I am too tired to make much sense, so I will take a peek in the morning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Henry Dillon, 13th Viscount Dillon

Dear BrownHairedGirl. Thank you for your recent attention to the articles Henry Dillon, 13th Viscount Dillon, Alexander Stewart (1746–1831), and Frederick Stewart, 4th Marquess of Londonderry. Your replacements of Member of Parliament with Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) are clearly improving the articles. However, why did you replace <br> with <br /> at the same occasion? HTML5 prefers <br>, as I understand it. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Johannes Schade.

The reason for closing the <br> tags is because the unclosed tags breaks some syntax highlighters, which makes it harder for editors to maintain the wiki markup.

It's a trivial matter to add this fix to the AWB run, and thereby improve the editing environment for everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I have heard that there is an old highlighter that cannot cope with unclosed BR. That must have been developed about the year 2000 when XHTML was in fashion. Nobody uses XHTML any more. I feel replacing <br> with <br /> is antiquated. Very few people still use that old highlighter. WP is HTML5 and not XHTML. Its editor comes with a highlighter that can cope with <br>. There is no guideline or policy that says we should use <br />. Just my opinion. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade, on what basis do you assert that very few people still use that old highlighter? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I am on Wikipedia since 2017 and I have a watchlist of 140 articles, mostly Irish biographies. Most of them have family trees that I added and these trees contain <br>. I look what edits people do. You are only the 4th person that I meet who does this. The other three were Tom.Reding (joined 2009), Kennethaw88 (joined 2013) and SchreiberBike (joined 2012). I had about the same conversation with them that I have now with you. They did this a long time ago. SchreiberBike said he did it because he used the "User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter". Ask them about it. If this old highlighter were still popular, people would change <br> to <br /> all the time and I would see this. I think it is antiquated. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, @Johannes Schade other people do also do this ... but since it is best done with a script or AWB, few do it prolifically.

Also, I note that you haven't answered my question of the evidence behind your assertion that very few people still use that old highlighter ... so I will assume that there is no evidence, just an assumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I have tried but was perhaps not successful. It seems not possible to search through user contributions. I found that SchreiberBike corrected <br> to <br/> on George Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Abercorn on 16 January 2020. This is indeed not so long ago. You are right: there is evidence that the old highlighter is still used.—But this seems to be irrelevant. Indeed I seem to be entirely wrong. Even if Wikipedia states that its HTML is HTML5, H:HTML says "Using <br> without the / breaks syntax highlighting, so should be avoided." I had never seen this before. Strangely, ordinary articles seem to be full of <br>s. I looked for FAs and found that Gog the Mild's recent FA Battle of Inverkeithing indeed uses <br />. I will therefore follow your example (with time) and change all my <br> to <br />. Thanks for having taught me a lesson. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St John Brodrick, 1st Earl of Midleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, bot, to be precise: my AWB edit[9] fixed a malformed link to a dab page. Anyhow, I have disambiguated it.[10]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regional List Succession Box

Hello,

Apologies for the regional list succession box on Maree Todd, I had seen someone else use them but without a predecesssor and successor to denote it was a regional list, but I do acknowledge that having it like that is not especially useful. --ScottishNardualElf (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Incident 24 May 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not interact with me again, broadly construed

I have no further interest in any opinion of yours that involves me. Your communication with me, about me, whether pinging me or not, will cease, please. This includes any talk page, broadly construed. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I have not sought any involvement with you, and our interaction today at ANI followed your decision to intervene in an matter which I had raised, which required me to mention and notify you when I escalated the matter to ANI. Please take responsibility for your decision, and do not claim that I dragged you into it, as you did here[11]

I will in future bear your request in mind. However, I cannot guarantee to refrain from replying to you in discussion as appropriate, and I will notify you if required by policies and guidelines or if a tool such as WP:Twinkle generates an automatic notification. I will try to avoid pinging you, but since I routinely ping editors to whom I reply, I cannot guarantee to avoid that entirely. I have pinged you in this reply solely to ensure that you are aware that I am unable to fully accept your request.

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your first paragraph.The "Fair Enough" comment refers only to the paragraph starting "I will in future". That does not mean I will discuss the first paragraph with you at all. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 22:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. If you want to disengage, just do so. But enough of the demands on me, and enough of coming back to argue the toss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, some links, so that they end up in my archive:

1. The ANI thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DeNoel's_sig.
2. Permalink to the ANI thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1024955272#User:DeNoel's_sig
3. The discussion which kicked this off User talk:DeNoel#Your_sig,_again (permalink)
4. The post by Timtrent in which they chose to improve themself in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DeNoel&diff=1024930071&oldid=1024930047
5. The bogus claim by Timtrent that they had been "dragged in" by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1024945135

Note that this is for my records. It is not an invitation to Timtrent to post here again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Please do not interact with me again

BHG, I have had quite enough.

Please do not interact with me again. No pings, no replies, no messages, no answers, nothing, on any part of Wikipedia including talk pages, project pages, and the like.

Regards, doktorb _words^deeds 04:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's sad and puzzling, but if it's what you want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

PS I accept the spirit of your request, but I cannot guarantee to follow it entirely. I won't post on your talk, but I will not refrain from joining a public discussion because you are part of it, and I will make my own judgements about whether to reply to anything you post on talk pages, project pages etc. You are free to chose not to respond to me, but not to unilaterally impose an interaction ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, this is already the second person in two days that doesn't want to interact with you anymore, which tells me two things: one, that people are more sensitive about their signature than one would expect, and two, that you may not have picked up on this sensitivity enough. I would like to ask you to go easy a bit in the discussions. Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|☉) 05:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: thanks for your thoughts. I have been looking at this unfold, and reflecting on it. I find it both surprising and saddening, and have had to work on not letting it rekindle the disillusionment with Wikipedia which I have felt on several occasions over the years.

Your post coincided with a rethink I had , which triggered strong agreement with Jorm that we need to approach this from the other end.[12]

I hope this will be generate more light and less heat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please interact with me

Since everyone seems to be communicating their preferences regarding your interactions with them, I thought I'd join the fun. I haven't interacted with you much, but I'd welcome more interaction. The couple times I've run into you, you've always been on the right side of the argument, in my view. Some people just get angry when they're arguing against someone who is right most of the time. Cheers. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

2nded ---Sluzzelin talk 07:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Scottywong and Sluzzelin: both for your support and for expressing it in a way that made me grin. We need to keep communicating with people we disagree with, and to distinguish clearly between disagreement and hostility/rudeness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia double soft redirects

Hey, BHG,

You were the last editor to this category page and it popped up on the nightly Empty Category List. It says it's a maintenance category but it doesn't have an Empty Category tag on it so I'm not sure if it is really utilized much. As far as I know, Wikipedia bots correct any double redirects that exist. So, do you think it should be tagged as a perennially empty category or tag it CSD C1? Thanks in advance for offering your opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz

My only edit[13] to Category:Wikipedia double soft redirects was as part of a huge AWB run. My only interest it was the TOC, so I never considered any other aspect of it.

So I have never given that page any other thoughts. However, I see that it is populated by {{Double soft redirect}}, which was kept at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 17#Template:Double_soft_redirect.

I haven't the headspace right now to evaluate that TFD decision, but I note that @Pppery endorsed the keep, and in my long experience that's a very good sign that it was the right decision. (I do remember one discussion where I reckoned that Pppery had misjudged a technical matter, but a/ that's one of hundreds of encounters, and b/ Pppery was open to other analysis and changed his view. I like that. So when I scan TFD, I watch for Pppery's assessments.).

Anyway, regardless of any view I might take of that, there is recent consensus to keep the template that populates the category ... so I think that justifies keeping the category and tagging it as {{Possibly empty category}}.

Hope that helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the above proposals is the correct action. Instead, the correct action was reverting the recent vandalism to Template:Double soft redirect (which I've now done), making the category no longer empty. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

References in headings

Why are you moving references back into headings? Per the MOS references do not belong in headings. I was moving them out of the heading and to the below the tables for that section. RJFJR (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah!!! So RJFJR can actually post on talk pages. Complete silence from you when I post on your talk, even after I posted a reminders. But when I revert an edit or two of yours, it#'s kaboom! -- and and you're talking in a flash.

Thew best place for the refs is in the title bar of the election boxes. AFAIK, no guideline deprecates that.

You moved them into the middle of nowhere, leaving their relevance unclear. That was the worst possible place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting solution. My first reaction was to worry how the reference would interact with the table syntax but I suppose that would work. For cases when there is one table in the section it would work well. If there are multiple tables in the section it would need to be added to each table (I'm not sure I like that as much). Putting it at the bottom of the section I was indicating the reference applied to the entire contents of the section. The alternative was putting it at the top which I found odd looking and sort of 'floating'.

I responded when I did because I was writing a talk page message when the little red light for notification came on. Before that I was busy rushing to fix mistakes I had made. I was not intending to ignore you. RJFJR (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RJFJR, one missed message might be credible, but since your edit pattern showed that you clearly had seen my first msg, the rest is utter nonsense. It took you one hour 16 minutes to reply to my first msg to you, despite a reminder msg from me after 16 minutes. So I am sorry to be blunt, but all your excuses come across as utter nonsense. If you want to apologise for not communicating, don't wreck the apology by wrapping it in manure. Please stop making my view of you worse than you have already made it this evening.

I fixed 2019 Fenland District Council election: no refs in headings, having moved them to the election boxes. (See current version). Some of the refs were already in the election boxes, following text, so they were not "floating". The moved refs are beside the ones which were there already.

The "floating" refs in any of this were those which you created in this edit[14], leaving the refs attached to no text. Since you already had examples on that page of the refs being inside an election box, I am amazed that you thought it helpful to put the refs in the middle of nowhere ... and puzzled tat you say you don't like 'floating' ref when you created about a dozen 'floating' refs.

And if a ref is needed in more than one location, just give it a name and cite again by name, as explained in WP:NAMEDREFS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

bare urls

The bare urls template currently puts them in Category:Articles needing cleanup. This makes it impossible to find the articles that are put into cleanup for other reasons. Do you think it would be worth proposing that the categories be changed? (Perhaps to a sub category of cleanup?)

I take an interest in articles needing cleanup, but I'm not as interested in bare-urls other than getting in my way when looking for cleanup. I never bothered to proposing a change to the categorizing previously, but there are nearly 2000 articles added this month and since yester day it was less than 300 probably over 1500 are for bare urls.

Also, for those article titles "<year> <place> by-election" that have http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm as the only reference. Do you think they should be tagged as needing additional references?

Sorry about not responding faster to your previous message. RJFJR (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

RJFJR, you messed me around for an hour by your non-communication with me over your reckless misuse of Refill. My repeated requests were ignored.

Then after your silence when I needed you, I reverted your changes to two pages ... and IMMEDIATELY, you jumped up and down like a jack-in-a box, with a flurry of talk page posts.

Ordinarily, I would be very happy to consider the issues you raise. But right now, after 90 minutes of dealing with your bizarre antics, I feel sick and furious of the sight of your name, and I want nothing more than for you to vanish forever.

That feeling may change in the morning, so I will look again at this tomorrow. But you have far more than your share of my time tonight, and I am fit to scream. So for tonight, just get lost before I started throwing witches' curses at you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that approach really necessary? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 07:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: the editor above wasted more than an hour of my time last night, by using a script utterly recklessly and then failing to communicate as they piled more problems on top of the mess created ... and then bombarding me with pointless pings to their talk page. That drama was indeed completely unnecessary, and I was completely exasperated by it, which is why I left it overnight to get over my exasperation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Monthly cleanup categories

@RJFJR, back to the issues you raised above. I will reply separately to them, to facilitate threaded discussion.

First, please note that your decision not to link the categories and templates you were referring to makes replying a bit more onerous. Please use links, as requested in the big editnotice shown above when you edit this page.

You write bare urls template currently puts them in Category:Articles needing cleanup. This makes it impossible to find the articles that are put into cleanup for other reasons. Do you think it would be worth proposing that the categories be changed? (Perhaps to a sub category of cleanup?)

{{Cleanup bare URLs}} does not put anything in Category:Articles needing cleanup; it puts them in [[:Category:Articles needing cleanup from <month year>]]. See e.g. Francis Bryan, in Category:Articles needing cleanup from May 2021 ... which has a header message This category combines all articles needing cleanup from May 2021 (2021-05) to enable us to work through the backlog more systematically. So it's a catch-all category, which combines all the articles given any cleanup tag in that month.

Those who want to work on a specific issue can go to Category:Clean-up categories from May 2021, which has a subcat for each specific issue. So why remove any one cleanup tag from this part of dual system? I don't get why you would want to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out Category:Clean-up categories from May 2021. I'll look through it further. RJFJR (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By-election articles

@RJFJR: you wrote for those article titles "<year> <place> by-election" that have http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm as the only reference. Do you think they should be tagged as needing additional references?

I assume that refers to articles such 1874 Wigtown Burghs by-election, which you edited yesterday, then reverted.[15]

(Note that after our encounter yesterday, I did another AWB run to fix all the by-election articles with bare URL links to Rayment, using {{Rayment-hc}} instead of http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm. See these 502 edits).

Basically, my view is that those are mostly a set of abysmal sub-stubs whose failings are so deep that they could be tagged with a multitude of tags. There are several hundred such sub-stubs on Westminster by-elections, mostly created in a flurry by a small set of editors. They are basically pointless, because they simply restate the facts contained in lists: constituency name, name and party of outgoing MP and new MP.

Yes, a decent article can be written on nearly any by-election. (see e.g. my own efforts at inter alia 1869 Blackburn by-election, 1943 St Albans by-election, and 1919 St Albans by-election, plus many examples of fine work done by others). But these sub-stubs don't even try to add any value beyond the lists, and seem to be inadequately verified even for the few facts they assert.

As far as I can see, the cited references are often bogus in that in most cases it seems to me to improbable that the editors who created these page actually consulted the cited sources, which are nearly always one or both of FWS Craig's election results and/or Rayment. Here's why:

1. http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm is on a website which lapsed, and is now a cybersquatter site. It is now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150215181722/http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm, and if you look at that age you can see that it is just an index. If the site has actually been used to verify the facts stated, then the editor would have had to visit the appropriate subpage in each, and could just as easily have pasted in the name of the subpage, e.g. http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Wcommons4.htm for 1874 Wigtown Burghs by-election. The fact they didn't name the subpage looks to me like no checking.
2. The refs to Craig are dodgy. In most cases, they don't cite a page number, which makes them suspect as above. But additionally, Craig's book are long out of print and very rare (my copies of the full set cost about £25 in total, 15 years ago. So for most editor they ae available only in libraries.

So I am fairly sure that these are kinda bogus refs: a mention of sources which would probably confirm roughly the facts asserted, but which are very unlikely to have actually been consulted. To my mind, that's no way to use sources ... but last time I tried to challenge an editor who was misusing citations in that way (about a decade ago), there was a shitstorm. I haven't the stomach for doing that again.

However, I don't think that a tag forest is needed for these sub-stubs. I would like something stronger than plain "stub", but until the community will accept a {{abysmally-constructed-sub-stub-which-serves-no-purpose}}, I think that a stub tag is sufficient.

Anyway, I look fwd to hearing your thoughts in response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Cardiff bare URLs

Hi. I have (hopefully) cleaned up the bare URL's on the article 2017 Cardiff Council election. Any chance you can tale a quick look and let me know if i have got it right? Thanks Benawu2 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Benawu2, that looks like great work. You have evidently taken time to examine each link, and formatted it in a meaningful way. Complete contrast to the reckless script jockey above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Irish theologians has been nominated for merging

Category:Irish theologians has been nominated for merging. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradford West

Hey, it was actually me that removed the comapct table. It was a year ago, but I forgot. I left edit comments when I did it, but maybe I wasn't clear enough? All the constituency pages should have the same format, so I think you should reverse your reversal of my reversal to keep consistency. Happy to discuss though. --Gharbhain (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain, yes all the other constituency pages should use the {{Compact election box}}, which is much easier to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that not against the current style guides for the constituency pages? That's why I updated Bradford West to have seperate tables. Doesn't make sense to keep Bradford West as compact and not have any effort going to change any other consituency page. I disagree compact tables are easier to read though, I find the sperate tables much easier to read. --Gharbhain (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts? Happy for it to be a compact table if that's the consensus but it seems to be that the style guide indicates the smaller table? Maybe the style page is needing an update? --Gharbhain (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gharbhain, the compact box was agreed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Archive_7#Compact_election_box. See linked and later discussions. The style guide contradicts that consensus.

It makes no sense to me to degrade the articles which use the compact box, by backdating them (not updating!) to an older layout which wastes lot of vertical space.

Also, please note that Bradford West is not the only page to use {{Compact election box}}. See transclusions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Ah, my apologies! I was working from the style guide, which I assumed would have been up-to-date with the consensus. No worries, I can even convert a few pages to use {{Compact election box}}. Also, sorry, I meant the only UK constituency page using the {{Compact election box}}, but I can see that Spen Valley also has it which I missed. --Gharbhain (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Underlinked tag

Hello, you marked approximately 50 articles on election results in Ireland and the United Kingdom with the underlinked tag. Could you please explain why you did this since these articles all have sufficient wikilinks? Thank you. Rogermx (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rogermx. I am not aware of having manually tagged any article as underlinked. However, I have been using WP:AWB for a few long series of edits, and AWB automatically adds that tag if appropriate, so I presume that is what you saw.

I have not checked AWB's criteria for this, but as usual a link is much better than a vague wave, so if you want to show me some actual examples te we can discuss whether the tag was justified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I found the documentation, at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#Tagger_(Tagger): Appends {{Underlinked}} if article has 1–3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise (comments, categories, defaultsort, Persondata, infoboxes, {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} are excluded from wikilink and size count)..

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your quick response. Here is one article 1996 Brentwood Borough Council election. Following Wikipedia guidelines, where should I put more Wikilinks? Rogermx (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  No prob, Rogermx. How about linking some of the locations, such as Shenfield? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hi there - unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines do not allow linking of section titles. Rogermx (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Rogermx: I know. I was thinking of linking from the heading of the election box, like this[16]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Leszek Borysiewicz article

Hey BrownHairedGirl, I just saw that you placed a "bare url" template on the Leszek Borysiewicz article, suggesting there should be full citations. As I'm looking at the article, only 2 out 20 sources seem bare URLs. The other ones are citations. Rather than simply removing, I wanted to ask you on your thoughts first. Thank you.2A02:1205:34E0:C0A0:C18:9DDB:194B:AABF (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)