User talk:BrownHairedGirl

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Thanks + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Consolidating categories

I remember the discussion (read: fiasco) that took place a while back regarding removing red linked categories from user pages. But I'm curious what you think about possibly starting an RfC about changing categories on user pages when the category changed to is just a different spelling or phrasing. That would permit getting rid of a huge number of categories with only one page in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. I'm perfectly willing to lend a hand by making such changes, but it seems to me that a consensus should be established, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MjolnirPants, and thanks for your message. Thanks too your support at Wikipedia talk:User categories#The_last_redlinked_categories_on_user_pages. I am sorry that you seem to have changed your mind about that, and particularly disappointed that you deleted my comment[1] on your userpage correcting Floquenbeam's inversion of the meaning of a post by Rathfelder. I don't see how collaboration is assisted by deleting factual corrections.

Nonetheless, I think your point here is worth considering, so I will reply anyway.

I think the underlying problem here is that there is deadlock on the question of whether to change WP:USERCAT as you seek. The RFC which you started has predictably attracted support from the small minority of users who want to use categories in this way, while others stay away. However, as Jc37 predicted at the outset, nobody wanted to close the discussion, because any close will either a) annoy the vocal advocates of such categories, or b) satisfy those advocates at the price of ignoring the policy WP:NOTSOCIAL.

RFC closers are obliged to weigh a discussion against policy, and the advocates of that change seemed to just ignore WP:NOTSOCIAL. So one way or another, any closer would earns themselves an avoidable headache. And your attempt to corral the closer by writing your own lengthy interpretation of the discussion was a further disincentive to any prospective closer ... so the RFC will remain unclosed until ythe bost closed it automatically by delisting it. It will now eventually slide off into the archives.

That RFC you opened would have been better cast as a proposal to amend or delete the policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL, rather to proceed as if the policy doesn't exist. If it had been framed that way, there was a greater likelihood that a closer would have appeared.

The question of changing categories to consolidate spelling variations shouldn't need an RFC. The existing processes of CFD and CFD/S are quite capable of handling those issues. The problem remains that there is a small but highly vocal group of editors who continue to mistakenly treat user categories as a form of personalised decoration on userpages, without regard for the fact that whole point of categories is that they extend beyond the page so categorised. So long as those editors persist in this self-contradictory stance, the deadlock will remain, and we will be stuck with ugly kludge of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians containing multiple variations of categories which in any spelling breach a guideline which has been consistent for a decade, and also breach long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL.

I think there is a good chance that this will end up at Arbcom. I do hope that before that happens, the editors concerned reflect carefully on policy, and find themselves a way of pulling back from bizarre claims such as Tryptofish's insistence[2] that disrupting enyclopedic maintenance is a "vastly" less serious problem than tweaking the presentation of humour on a userpage. Sadly, there are have been several comments like that which fall well into WP:NOTHERE territory, and are likely to count very heavily against those editors in any Arbcom case.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope that you didn't just say that I am WP:NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish

What I said was that attitude you displayed in that comment there was well into WP:NOTHERE territory.

Naturally, I hope that your comment was an momentary burst of letting off steam, and it does not reflect your true intent.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfortunate that you feel that way. I hope that you will keep in mind that I have consistently supported the effort to clean up the redlink list. Neither my "attitude" nor my beliefs are "nothere". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, if you support that effort then it is perverse to make the sort of comment you made there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I will not be responding further here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't defend yourself.

[3] Meatball:DefendEachOther. You've obviously done a good job. The level of upset is far less than I expected. Preceding comments make you look good. If the last upset person finds peace by throwing gratuitous insults at you, you have achieved peace already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smokey. Sound advice. I'll save the link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2018 television seasons

I see that you restored Category:2018 television seasons because it was no longer empty. However, the category should not be populated. The "20xx television seasons" categories are problematic every year as the criteria for inclusion is that they are "for television seasons that have aired at least one episode in 20xx". Since it is now still 9 months before 2018, no episodes "have aired" in 2018 and will not for the next nine months. The category therefore cannot be populated until at least 1 January 2018. The existence of the category results in articles being added to it contrary to the inclusion criteria. Last year Category:2017 television seasons was create protected until 1 January 2017 so that people would not add articles until 2017 arrived. The red category was a signal that it was invalid. The article that was added to the category yesterday was incredibly premature and has been redirected so the category is empty again. I have no doubt that somebody will add another article to it while it exists, at which time it will be emptied again, but the category should remain deleted until it can be populated. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AussieLegend, and thanks for your msg.

I'm afraid that the fact a category is red is not a signal that it is invalid. It merely indicates that it hasn't been created yet. May be invalid, maybe not.

That category was one of 400 which were listed in the 1 April update if Special:WantedCategories, a cleanup list which has now been cleared. When I aw that one, I noted that it had previously been deleted as empty, but was no longer empty, and that it was part of an established series. WE have plenty of other by-future-year categories, so I saw no reason to keep this one deleted.

I am actually not a great fan of future-year categorisation, but since it seems to be well-established, I go with the flow.

So I have no objection in principle to treating this one as an exception if there is a consensus to do so. Can you point me to any such consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "invalid" I meant that it was not a valid category because it didn't exist. When editors tried to create it, because it was create protected they would find that they couldn't and so would take it as being an invalid category. Those editors in the TV project who saw it would not even try to create it, they would just remove the category. I did manage to find the discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19#Category:2015 television seasons. Not an extremely strong consensus, but consensus nonetheless. As can be seen, exclusion of such categories is consistent with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again AussieLegend, and thanks for going to trouble of digging the discussion out of the archives.

I'm quite happy to accept the consensus, so I will G7-speedy delete the category.

However, I followed up on the question posed in the discission about what WP:FILM does, and I see that there is both a [[:Category:2019 films] and a Category:2018 films. It does seem to me to be unhelpful to have such inconsistency between similar types of article, so I wondered then about video games, where we have both Category:2018 video games and Category:2019 video games. However, the video game editors have an interesting solution: all the content is subcats, namely Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2018 and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2019.

That solution seems to me to be a very good one: it allows editors to categorise by published schedule, while acknowledging that the date is a schedule not a fact. What would you think of adopting that approach? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does have merit but is probably something that needs to be raised at WT:TV. One of the big problems we have in the TV project is that if you give editors an inch, they'll take a mile. Managing TV articles ~~can~~ ~~sometimes~~ ~~often~~ is usually like being a kindergarten teacher. I edit in several areas and by far it's the worst part of Wikipedia that I've seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AussieLegend, I can well imagine that TV programmes pull in a lot of enthusiasts whose enthusiasm may exceed their familiarity with en.wp principles. Good to know that there are experienced heads keeping an eye on things, when so many wikiprojects have fallen silent.

Anyway, I was just throwing the idea out there. If it doesn't help, please ignore it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CCC categories

Hello, BHG, hope you are okay. Thanks for your help with the C2C thingy. Just letting you know that I've placed the renaming proposal for these six categories at CFD. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats

Liberal Democrats, which is now a disambiguation page, has thousands of incoming links. I don't have time to update these now, so I think I will turn it back into a redirect for now. Eventually it should probably be made into a dab page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, thanks for the closure of Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)#Requested_move_24_March_2017, and for the notification. I will get to work on the links, but I agree that it is best to reinstate the redirect until that is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, doing now ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

You wrote that I added "refs to the unreliable Daily Mail" here, but that was not my edit. Can you please clarity? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong diff. Should be [4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats (UK)

Hi, just a heads up but here you missed a few links, fixed here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same again here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill. I try to keep my AWB replacements very tightly focused to avoid false positives, but I had entirely forgotten about the winner/loser fields. Now fixed, and further passes will catch them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen some others slip through in hatnotes and "main article" links, I think that was someone else though. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, I tend to reckon that a job like this is inevitably a bit of a multi-pass exercise. With the most common cases done, the other patterns start to become clearer, and gradually it gets whittled down to outliers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really looked at articles I've edited recently, but will keep an eye out for any strays as I go along. On the plus side, I did find a Canadian politician linked to the wrong party. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, DuncanHill. It's easy enough to add an extra regex to AWB once spotted, so any pointers to patterns are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with Template:English district control generating links to Liberal Democrats instead of Liberal Democrats (UK). I noticed this on Three Rivers District in the infobox section "Government". I have no idea whatsoever how to fix this. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, DuncanHill. I will take a look now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it, it wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it, DuncanHill. I went straight to the source, couldn't see a prob, then took a peek at the history and saw your 2 edits[5]. Good work!

I have been running a progressively wider set of AWB regexes against all pages which transclude the outdated Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color (now of course should be Template:Liberal Democrats (UK)/meta/color). I have now got the list down to about 600 (from 3600 last night), and think I am on the final pass. It consists almost entirely of councils, local elections, and the odd by-election.

That will still leave a bunch of plain wikilinks, and maybe a few template usages which I haven't yet spotted. But I think the bulk of the job will be done with this AWB run. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thank you. I did notice another type of link slipping through, it's where there's a link to a section in the article, for example as fixed here. DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks, DuncanHill. Good catch. I'll add that to my regex set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More progress, DuncanHill. I have now cleared all article-space links to the meta templates:

Now I think it's mostly it's just plain wikilinks, which should be much easier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babanrao Dhakane

Hi. I Edited an article of Babanrao Dhakane. I need to know how did you know Mr Dhakne? I am his grandson. I could help you to edit information about him.Hrishikesh Dhakane (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Hrishi[reply]

What makes you think I know Babanrao Dhakane? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clive Lewis (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labour MPs who were also MPs for other parties

Re: this, he was also an SDP MP, surely he should stay in the "(party not specified) Members for English constituencies" until he is put into Category:SDP MPs for English constituencies? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: could do that, but I was going to do the SDP MPs as another pass, so either way he will get there as part of this process, within the next 24 hours. There are many other MPs in similar situations, who will also be picked up in later passes.

But I'll do Wrigglesworth manually for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle Foot just came up on my watchlist too. I do think it would be better to leave these in the relevant parent cat until they are in all the appropriate new subcats. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: it would either make he AWB job much more complicated (as in requiring me to spend an hour or two writing and testing a custom module), or require thousands of articles to be edited twice. This way is simpler, faster, less error-prone ... and creates a hiatus of only a few hours.

BTW, Dingle Foot is already fixed manually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS @DuncanHill: If you feel like doing some of it manually, here's a list of English SDP MPs to diffuse]. Just beware of Roy Jenkins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: read my edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Why would you remove categories rather than fix a typo of one space? Are you suggesting that this biography shouldn't be listed by year of birth? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I didn't check whether it was a typo or a non-existent category; I knew that you were experienced enough to figure that out, and to know the category structure in that fields so that you coukd fix your error. That was one of several categorisation errors by you which I had just encountered, all caused by you using AWB for manual categorisation. It gives no feedback on whether the categorisation is accurate, so it's a good idea to check afterwards if you use AWB in that way.

What you should have said here was "thanks, BHG, for drawing my attention to my inadvertent error". If you just want to moan at me instead, don't reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever do that again or tell me how to be grateful to you for being condescending. What you did takes much more effort and removes valid categories from an article in some attempt to be passive-aggressive. For instance, I didn't undo your edit to this talk page when you misspelled "could" as "coukd" and leave some snarky edit summary--if it were important to fix, I would fix it myself and if there are several errors of this type, I would tell you so. I am not thankful for your attitude (again) and if you see errors in the future, either fix them or tell me what they are but don't do this as it makes the encyclopedia worse (which you know). What other errors have you seen? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelbert Chouinard

What sources are too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral? The Kingfisher (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kingfisher: I presume you are referring to the article Nelbert Chouinard. Did you actually read the tags I applied? I tagged it for neutrality and notability.

You have pinged me both here and on the article's talk page. Articles are best discussed on their talk pages, so I will reply at Talk:Nelbert Chouinard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy criterion

Good afternoon! Regarding last your comment in this discussion, is there a particular forum where we may propose to add this as a criterion to CFDS? I would definitely support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle

Glad we agree. I guess that WT:CFD would be the place. Maybe best done as an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes you made to Matchbook site

Your Post: Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. An edit that you recently made to [FX] Matchbook FX seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My response:

Hello BrownHairedGirl. Thank you very much for your assistance with the Matchbook[[6]] (Matchbook FX page. It is greatly appreciated. Upon review, I concede that

A. Forex B. Retail Forex Trading C. Electronic Communication Network D. Retail foreign exchange trading

are not existing categories.

However, the following categories indeed ARE existing, valid and applicable but you deleted them anyway:

1. Foreign exchange market 2. Currency 3. Online brokerages

Would you be kind enough to reinstitute the above three (3) categories to the Matchbook page?

Thanks! 69.123.36.38 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC) --69.123.36.38 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful note about the WP:MOS and tagging

Re this edit, per WP:DASH, a non-spacing dash goes between dates in a range with an en dash between them. Also, you may want to take a look at the template {{Orphan}} for how it's used and what function it serves in creating internal links. If you need any more help, please let me know. Thanks for editing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

―Justin, this is really very very simple. I couldn't care less about all those other changes you made. I reverted[7] your edit[8] to Warren Ashby because it placed the page in a non-existent category, and I made that very clear in the edit summary: "Categories do not exist".

I told you before to stay off my talk page until you could stop whining about my reversion of your AWB edits where you didn't check the results. That is a breach of WP:AWBRULES #1: You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving.

This comment of yours here deliberately misses the point, so I count it as another example of your whining.

All that I ask of you is that you either a) check your own edits, or b) clean them when they are reverted.

So I say again: Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you feel the above statements constitute "whining" but they don't. I just figured I would give an explanation for why I reverted you. Please let me know how else I can help in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closing of full CfD

Hi, I don't see how there could be any objection to the merits of your speedy close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 14, but procedurally, instant closure is only proper for WP:C2E. The other cases of C2 should be given 48 hours, and C1 7 days. (I remember getting that wrong myself.) Hope this helps, – Fayenatic London 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fayenatic, and thanks for your message.

I was tired when I spotted it, and initially got it into my head that this was one of the types of speedy deletion with instant deletion permissible. Then, as I opened up the section, I blinked and remembered that no, it was speedy renaming, and that it had a 48 hour wait. But then I thought that while it would be nodded through without comment at speedy, if I left it open on the CFD page then others would use up their time commenting on it, pointlessly. So I thought what the hell, I'll speedy it now, and save everyone the trouble.

Maybe I shouldn't have, and your very gentle and friendly reminder is something to bear in mind if I encounter this sort of thing again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, thanks for your full reply. I thought you would be aware.

If only we did have an abundance of people commenting at CFD these days!

Even after I learned that the 48 hour rule applies, I sometimes still want to do an instant close. I would quite like to tweak the procedure to allow instant closure in stark-staring-obvious cases... but that opens the door to admin abuse (at least one case comes to mind). It's probably best to stick as it is; so if we have to justify early processing, we fall back on WP's WTH clause or the snowball rule. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fayenatic.

You're right of course that sadly there isn't likely to be a flurry of comments, so it's nowhere near as pressing as it would have been in the late 2000s. But still it bugs me a bit to think of editors weighing in to support something which really only needs silence or objections.

So I'm thinking that next time I encounter a nom which meets C2A-C2D criteria, I should just leave a note along the lines of "This is a WP:C2C speedy. Closing in 48 hours unless there are any objections".

How does that sound to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very sensible idea. All you'd have to do after that would be to remember to go back and fulfil it. If not seen immediately, "Closing 48 hours after nomination..." would be clearer. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fayenatic

That's a good mod. I have copied * This is a [[WP:C2X]] speedy. Closing 48 hours after nomination, unless there are any objections. --~~~~ to my clipboard saver for further use ... and now, as you say, the only trick is to remember to go back after 48 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about making that into a template (to be removed when closing), and asking for AnomieBOT to count occurrences of that template and record the count in WP:CFDAC? – Fayenatic London 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, FL is a brilliant idea. Truly inspired.

Any suggestions for a snappy yet non-misleading template name? the best I could think of is Template:Speedy this CFD, but it's a bit verbose.
Template:48hour is snappier, but not very clear about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at current CFD-related templates in Category:Categories for discussion templates and list of templates beginning with Cfd, I suggest Template:cfd c2. ~~Alternatively, Template:Cfd full c2.~~ It should require one parameter, expecting the answer A/B/C/D (corresponding to C2A, C2B etc).

BTW, check out that list beginning Cfd... There are a few short redirects that I will be using from now on. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More brilliance, FL. Template:cfd c2 is terse and unambiguous.

I will doodle a draft at that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have my moments!

If we require it to be subst'd, it could auto-sign, and include a hidden line in capitals "remove this line when closing". At first I was thinking of something like {{delsort}}, but perhaps something like {{relist}} would be better, to make it more visible to the closer. That would require 2 templates: Template:cfd c2 to be entered as e.g. {{subst:cfd c2|a}}, which would insert Template:Cfd c2 full when subst'd, to be counted by AnomieBOT. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination to rename categories in the Category:Organizations based in Poland tree

Please note that I have nominated the categories from the Category:Organizations based in Poland treew to be renamed to a consistant pattern. Since you have participated in [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9#Organizations based in Poland|a previous nomination on this issue][], you may want to participate in the new discussion, which can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 16#Category:Organizations based in Poland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Adore Delano album covers

A tag has been placed on Category:Adore Delano album covers 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 removed 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. Green Giant (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant: whether by accident or design, that was sneaky. See Category talk:Adore Delano album covers#Contested_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwimSwam

Can you take a look at this? It may be an old AfC that was pasted into the mainspace. Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nicnote, that's a good catch.

It's not a copy-paste, but it is similar to a declined AFC. So I have AFDed it, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwimSwam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you would agree to send it back to draftspace (not like there is much choice given the responses at AfD). It seems reasonable and assumes good faith so there is little room to argue. I rescinded my delete support based on the fact that I would monitor it through draft space and if it ever moves to mainspace. I would argue that the user's account is being used by the company and now there is a new person in the PR department who has taken over it, as I've seen happen a couple of times. But there is no way I can support that claim. Well, unless you have access to CIA surveillance equipment... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Nicnote, I am inclined to agree that this looks very much like a company account (WP:DUCK etc!), but that it'd be hard to prove. For some bizarre reason the CIA hasn't given you or me full access to its systems <grin>

Anyway, I have posted at the AFD to say that I'm fine with draftification. Or rather that even though the word is hideous, I endorse the action.

Good luck with monitoring it. It seems like a tiresome responsibility, but I am sure you will do a great job of countering the promotional forces which apper to be at work here.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time here and historically. Your time is at a premium. Unfortunately, academics have also decided to take it onto themselves to add their own research to Wikipedia in a very discreet fashion. Others think that adding sources or articles relating to them will bear no difference in these people's future careers. I beg to differ. That's probably what I'll be focusing on going forward, as well as WP:NPP and using WP:STiki.

WP:DUCK is a wonderful 'rule' along with WP:NORULES. Common sense people, common sense! (Although they might all be dogs)

Leave it to me - I will write to the CIA at once. Keeping Wikipedia safe is vital in fighting global injustice. As such, we should have access to such tools. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010 disetablishments in Thailand

I discovered this category after creating Category:2010 disestablishments in Thailand. Your creation was misspelled, so I moved its one entry to the category I created and nominated yours for deletion. Would you like the honor of deep sixing Category:2010 disetablishments in Thailand?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: good catch. But someone has beaten me to it, WP:G6ed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had seen the wrongly spelled category before categorizing the article I was working on, I would have just put the article in your category and then ask for it to be renamed. I use HOTCAT to enter categories and if a category don't exist, I still categorize the page and then create the new category at once. Because it was misspelled I didn't see it when typing in 2010 disestablishments in Thailand. I've done typos when creating categories too. Should you ever come across one, feel free to fix and or delete it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|WilliamJE}, that one wasn't my typo. It was a typo by somebody else, and I clumsily didn't spot the mis-spelling when it appeared in Special:WantedCategories. Stoopid of me.

But you did the right thing in taking a minimum-hassle-and-bureaucracy approach to sorting it out a housekeeping fix. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London borough articles

Hello, I noticed the recent migration of categories such as "Category:Stuff in X" to "Category:Stuff in the London Borough of X", which I believe took place at your instigation on CfD? Do you think that that CfD provides sufficient rationale to boldly move articles in the article namespace too? Such as List of people from Bexley, List of people from Greenwich etc.? Jdcooper (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdcooper

In general, the principle is that category names follow article names. Your idea seems to be the other way around, so I don't think that citing the category move as a precedent is a good idea.

I think that in the case of these lists, some discussion is needed. For example, List of people from Bexley clearly defines its scope as being the borough, so the move would seem to me to be a good clarification of scope; but List of people from Greenwich is does not define its scope, and could refer either to the borough or to Greenwich itself.

Maybe you could start a discussion at WT:LONDON? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, will give it some thought, thanks for your help! Jdcooper (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that helped, Jdcooper. If you do start a discussion, feel free to ping me if you'd like any further thoughts ... and if you'd prefer not to, that's fine too. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Joseph O'Connor Oarsmen

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I noticed that you were the last person who did an edit of this article. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered this WikipediaJarekio (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC) article as William Joseph O'Connor is a great uncle. I remember clearly of the family talking about this person.[reply]

Anyway, you have any interest, I have a couple of photos of William that you may want to add.

Here is one that I found on Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/C1888-WILLIAM-OCONNOR-ELMER-CHICKERING-CABINET-CARD-SGC-84-OARSMAN-OARSMEN-N29-/352024212231?hash=item51f6473307:g:iBcAAOxyzpdTi~Es

I am making my first visit to Ireland in about three weeks.

Warm Regards, James O'Connor 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Jarekio (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parma Calcio presidents category

Hi BHG,

I noticed your work tracing history of renaming discussions on this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 15.

For the record, there was a complication not currently recorded there: user:Armbrust expressed "Oppose" to the speedy renaming. [9]

So Matthew hk had some justification in stating that the Speedy had been opposed.

I pinged Armbrust to clarify whether he was opposing the original rename, or the revised name that I had suggested. He did not reply by next afternoon, despite being active on Wikipedia with another edit to the same page, so I went ahead and processed the revised rename, stating in my edit summary "assuming Armbrust opposed original but not revised proposal". [10]

Before I de-listed the nomination from the Working page,[11] I did check for backlinks to the old name Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Parma_Calcio_1913_presidents, but I admit that I do not usually bother reviewing backlinks from CFD pages (or any other pages in Wikipedia namespace). I therefore overlooked that the CFD link was a current and still-open discussion, and failed to go and close that discussion as I ought to have done.

I apologise for my part in causing extra work to a fellow admin, in this case yourself, to trace what had happened. I'll try to look out for backlinks from current CFDs in future. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fayenatic, that's v kind of you, but no need to apologise. It wasn't your fault. The editor who took the thing to full CFD should have left a note at CFD/S, and regardless of anything else, that note would have avoided the confusion.

Sorry I missed Armbrust's oppose in my summary, and thanks for pointing out my oversight. I saw the note in you edit summary, but assumed it applied to another part of the long list.

It is very conscientious of you of to say that you will try to look out for backlinks from current CFDs in future, but I don't think you should do that. There's enough work already in processing CFD/S without adding an extra layer to it ... and this is the only time I have ever seen this happen in the last 11 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Armenian people by ethnicity

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Armenian people by ethnicity 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 removed 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. —swpb^T 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Civil Parishes of Lichfield

Template:Civil Parishes of Lichfield has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opps...

"WI the pun"? Habatchii (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]