User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost
25 April 2024
 


Category:Retailing in fiction has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Retailing in fiction 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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Speedy Category move contest[edit]

Hello Fayenatic london,

I believed you processed these category moves recently that User:Gonnym proposed:

  • Category:Confederate victories of the American Civil War to Category:Confederate States of America victories of the American Civil War – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Confederate war crimes to Category:Confederate States of America war crimes – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Confederate cemeteries in Arkansas to Category:Confederate States of America cemeteries in Arkansas – C2C. Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Are these really C2C, though? For all that it's a little weird we apparently categorize ACW by victories or defeats rather than just "battles involving (country)"... I don't see the issue with using an adjective form here, so the higher-level category using the country form isn't necessarily relevant on a C2C basis (e.g. Category:French cuisine is a subcategory of Category:Food and drink in France, C2C wouldn't allow a speedy move to "France cuisine"). It seems like this should have been discussed, at least? But maybe I'm missing something. SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate is a disambiguation page so is Category:Confederate war crimes referencing Confederate Ireland or maybe German Confederation? Categories are never left with their ambiguous names. Then we C2C the entire set. Which is why we have Category:Native American tribes in Georgia (U.S. state), even though the other Georgia (country) doesn't have any Native American tribes. Gonnym (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Do you accept this rationale? If you still dispute it then I will reverse these as needing a full discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. Let's have the full discussion (@Gonnym:). Agree with Gonnym that categories are stricter about not requiring disambiguation, but not when the category title includes "of the American Civil War" which fixes any disambiguation concerns immediately. For the war crimes one, everything except the US in Category:War crimes committed by country is done in adjectival form ("Italian war crimes"). The cemeteries one is the least relevant, it's not a big deal, but I'd argue that the new title sounds like it's vaguely suggesting cemeteries operated by the CSA (during the Civil War?) rather than cemeteries-of-dead-Confederates. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those have been reverted now, and listed as Opposed at WP:CFDS with the above. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFDW[edit]

Can you process the categories I've listed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC request please? They've been left for a while. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: thanks for your continuing work at CFD! Your current format at WT:CFDW is proving very easy to copy and paste into the Working page.
If you could make occasional manual amendments, that would be welcome, e.g. splitting "rename/merge" nominations into two result lists. The close for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Category:Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific should have excluded Czechoslovakia. As for "Purge" and "Split" outcomes, you can list these directly on the /Manual page, since that is not protected – although in practice, I have been doing the small ones myself straight from your NAC listing. Oh, and renaming the frogs nomination per your listing of Option B was fine, but the first 4 nominated as Option A also needed processing as retained. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD closure[edit]

I am surprised about the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_29#Category:Aftermath_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War. Everyone in the discussion save one was in favour of merging even after the renaming option was on the table, and the one opposing vote was mostly an "other stuff exists", which is tackled in follow-up nominations. Could you clarify please? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Thank you, I clearly misread the consensus there. I have changed the close to Merge. I will reverse the rename, then merge. – Fayenatic London 05:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forbes 30 Under 30 multi-time recipients[edit]

Shouldn't this category have been deleted too? [1] Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template editing[edit]

Hey, would you be willing to implement the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_14#Category:Film_incomplete_lists yourself? There is no point in me possibly messing things up. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – done. Luckily I spotted that I was wrong about removing the TDMCA line, and have reinstated it in template:Incomplete list. @Liz: if you are active now, please don't rush to delete empty dated categories for incomplete lists, as they will probably be re-populated shortly.– Fayenatic London 09:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD relist[edit]

Thanks for fixing my relist here, I normally use XFDcloser but it doesn't work on large nominations.
I'll try to get back to closing CfD discussions but I've been taking a semi-wikibreak. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally gotten around to this, and I'm going to start closing CFDs again. I've listed a few at WT:CFDW. By the way, do you think the syntaxhighlight is an improvement? ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Thanks again, you are being an enormous help at CFD. Yes, the current syntax is very helpful.
I haven't reviewed your other work, but if you're interested in being nominated at WP:RFA, I'd be pleased to make or support the nomination.
@Marcocapelle: as ever, the same still goes for you. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category-related Barnstars![edit]

Ok, so I think we'll all agree that there are a lot of contributors to cfd. But I see you two almost everywhere. Contributing to a vast number of discussions and closing ones you haven't.

It seems to me, at times, you're all that stands between keeping a discussion going in order to find consensus, and it turning into "no consensus".

So 2 things.

First:

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the work you do in and around WP:CFD. - jc37 12:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and:

Hiding created this a long time ago to give to me. I'm (hopefully) paying that sentiment forward:

The Categorisation Barnstar
For all the hard work you do regarding categories. - jc37 12:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


You both well deserve them.

And finally, as noted, you've both clearly been very active around CfD. So I'll pass on some advice which had been suggested to me by others before me:

Look around at those you see positively and civilly contributing, who you might deem to have a clue(tm). And see if they might be interested in being nominated for adminship.

If it helps, this is my criteria: User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria. But honestly, you should follow your own instincts to what you feel is right.

I wish you both well : ) - jc37 12:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes categories[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I see a lot of empty "Crimes" categories on tonight's Empty Category list. I saw you nominated a few at Speedy Rename so I wondered if you knew if these empty categories were in the process of being filled via templates and bots. I don't want to tag dozens of categories that I'll just need to untag tomorrow. Thanks for any clue you can share. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz, I have updated the template now, and am processing the remainder of this set of categories without waiting. – Fayenatic London 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving request[edit]

Hello. You were active in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_28#Infobox_element. The bot didn't move Category:Element data sets/overviews correctly. Can you fix it? Christian75 (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian75: It seems OK now – but it wasn't me! – Fayenatic London 07:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Maybe I should have asked the bot-owner... (he did it) Christian75 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Education Program:Peer to Peer University/Writing Wikipedia Articles (2013 Q2)[edit]

Some thoughts on that redirect you created:

  1. It's technically in mainspace since the education program namespace was deleted entirely.
  2. It doesn't even point to the page that was originally at that title, which, to quote myself from earlier, vanished into the ether (literally, not even admins can undelete [it]) when the extension was uninstalled, but instead to the page that was previously at "Education Program talk:Peer to Peer University/Writing Wikipedia Articles (2013 Q2)"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 189#Education program namespace removal * Pppery * it has begun... 20:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 4 abbreviations[edit]

If you're going to change ISO 4 abbreviations, at least verify them please? Because this isn't the ISO 4 abbreviation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my good-faith merge from an abandoned user draft. How should I verify ISO 4 abbreviations, please? E.g. the LTWA given in External links has no abbreviation for Annual; "Annu." is only given for the Italian word Annuale. – Fayenatic London 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I beg your pardon, "Annu-" must be a wildcard for anything English beginning with Annu... [2] – Fayenatic London 07:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way is to use TokenZero's tool, which gives Annu. Rev. Political Sci. as the probable abbreviation. The languages given are just examples of where the roots come from. Annu- means any word that starts with Annu... that has the same roots as the other ones. So Annuale would be Annu. but Annunciation wouldn't, since it has a different root. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also enable the infobox search links to have links to various databases and tools, including TokenZero's tool. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Madame Necker (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou[edit]

Thankyou for adding needed parent categories to some establishment categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes![edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

An editor has tagged Category:User pages with short description for speedy deletion which has over 64,000 pages in it. You closed the CFD was it your intention for this to happen? Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Liz: I replied to the user at WP:RT. – Fayenatic London 07:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Principality of Ongal" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Principality of Ongal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD reasoning?[edit]

Hi, firstly I'm not disputing your NC close, which would be a reasonable read of the 9d:7k count. But as someone with little background in category discussions, I'd like to know how comments were weighted. My read of it was that the outcome hinged on whether this was a defining topic for its subjects, and given the consensus deletion of categories for recipients of much more noteworthy awards it would seem those advocating to keep would need a much stronger argument than the fact that WiR uses it for project-space purposes and that they think the honor is important. These !votes didn't seem to be based on any P&Gs, so I would've thought they'd be given less weight? The rebuttals by @Marcocapelle and @Richhoncho also seemed pretty strong. And I think it's worth mentioning all 7 keep !voters are active at WiR, which was notified of the CfD (with a mention of the category's utility to WiR) the same day it was nominated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoelleJay: I have closed various other recent CFDs on "Top 100 Lists" as Delete, but the numbers did not allow for it here. With so many Keep votes, they would have to be noticeably vacuous and partisan to be discounted. If policy-based arguments are clearly set out early in a discussion and still fail to persuade many editors, then they are not conclusive. This case is comparable to the above deletion review.
In the past I have sometimes sseveral everal felt able to give more weight to policy-based arguments in the event of an evenly balanced disagreement, and close the discussion as a consensus one way or the other. However, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 4 one such case was overturned to No consensus, and I have been more cautious since then. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is CfD supposed to be very different from AfD? The prevailing attitude there is basically in line with ROUGHCONSENSUS: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. It also seems functionally different from the DRVs you mention, in that I didn't see that the keep !voters really even engaged with P&G arguments at all, other than to deride them or conflate "definingness" with "importance". The first DRV also seems to support considering precedent when closing, and there's certainly precedent for deleting these types of categories. I do appreciate you're hesitant to close against a strong numerical minority, but if CfD participants (especially if they're arguably canvassed) are regularly overriding guidelines and global consensus then that seems like an issue! JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: you are welcome to test these points at WP:DRV, if you find this case sufficiently different from the ones above. In favour of review, the "keep" votes were mainly not CFD regulars, and some did not understand WP:DEFINING. On the other hand, at least some of the articles do mention BBC 100 Women (unlike most other Top 100 Lists), which tends to indicate that it actually is defining. I didn't mention that before, but I remember that I did verify it before closing – otherwise I might have voted for delete rather than closing. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought WP:DEFINING characteristics were supposed to be the types of things listed in the lead sentence, rather than just things that appear anywhere in the article? I did a spot-check of all the members with "A" surnames and there weren't any that mentioned the award in the first sentence, the majority didn't even have it in the lead section.
And I do hope I'm not coming off as antagonistic towards you-- I'm sympathetic to your position and appreciate your taking the time to explain things to me--but I really want to understand the norms before participating in more CfDs, and this result was confusing to me. JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: that's OK, you are welcome, and it's a useful exercise for me! If something is in the lede section, it's likely to be defining. If it's nowhere in the article, that's a strong indication that it's not defining (as was the case for several deleted award categories). In between, characteristics mentioned only in the body of the article present a range of cases, some of which may be debatable. Some things are accepted as defining even if not mentioned in the lede, e.g. sexuality. Minor awards such as this one may need discussion to seek consensus over the category. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiCleanerMan/Template category map[edit]

"NOTE: Any editor who edits this page in good faith, please ping me in your edit summary and describe the changes you have made. This is to ensure that there is no confusion when I return to edit this after any given period. The same rule of thumb applies at User:WikiCleanerMan/Category map." WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: I confess that I did not notice the above note on your page when updating links after category renames. I have now added this as an edit notice on each of the two pages above, with a border to increase visiblility. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Majeerteen Sultanate[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Majeerteen Sultanate 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! 01:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:18th century in the Majeerteen Sultanate

A tag has been placed on Category:18th century in the Majeerteen Sultanate 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! 20:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I'm not going to fight over these categories, but this edit emptied them out-of-process, and a full discussion for the record would have been preferable. – Fayenatic London 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1850 disestablishments in Africa[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:1850 disestablishments in Africa 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! 01:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well done Marcocapelle for [3]. Are you working through the whole series of Ottoman years within Africa? I had in mind to look into that.
For years when there was e.g. an establishment in Ottoman Egypt, I think it would be better to place pages directly in Africa as well as Ottoman Empire, rather than have any Ottoman Empire categories within Africa; what do you think? This would pave the way for generating continent parent categories from {{EstcatCountry}}. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placing pages directly in Africa as well as Ottoman Empire, is exactly what I am doing. I've slowly worked through the years of the 16th, 17th and 18th century, am now halfway the 19th century. I haven't looked at the decades and centuries yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to my userpage[edit]

I'm curious about the reason for this edit? Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. That's a Wikimedia artefact – I only meant to save the page with a null edit to refresh transclusions after removal of a user category. Apologies for distracting you. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hahah[edit]

edit from October 2009 ? - haha I find it hard to thing back that far... JarrahTree 14:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I left your page undeleted to be renamed, and meant to give credit to Koavf for creating the page that I did delete, Category talk:Rococo architecture in Poland. Never mind. – Fayenatic London 14:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was in (ok the diff between in/of seems to be a favourite of the month at the moment, suppose cfd needs the fodder one way or other) I was sure I was in London in October 2009 - or maybe it was Hungary, the exif data in my camera of the time stuffed up... JarrahTree 14:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What info do you seek on this category move?[edit]

Re this edit, I don't understand the issue with moving Category:NCAA Division II Men's Ice Hockey Tournament to Category:NCAA Division II men's ice hockey tournament. What info are you looking for? Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was with this line:
Do you see it now? – Fayenatic London 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Should be:

But it was already fixed thus at the page you linked. Need more? Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last move should be done by the bot at 17 minutes past (its half-hourly start time). After that, all will be well.
The current bot has some useful failsafes. As the Division 3 category was moved to the Division 2 name, the bot was not able to move the old Division 2 page to that same name (as it was instructed to do), so thankfully it did not merge the contents. So first I had to move the incorrectly-named Division 2 to Division 3, then I had to release the bot to move the old Division 2 to the now-unoccupied new Division 2 name. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the trouble I caused. I'll try not to let it happen again. Thanks for your diligent service! Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Ymblanter and I keep a beady eye on the Speedy workings, and as I said JJMC89's bot limits itself in ways that are helpful. – Fayenatic London 18:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

apologies[edit]

...for my somewhat flippant answer the other day at CFDS. Sometimes Wikipedia discussions feel so finicky and frustrate me. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy that's fine, no problem! CFD Speedy criteria are rightly strict, as they bypass normal discussion and record-keeping procedures. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I see the rationale between the concepts of moving of articles and categories being so significantly different (the impact on multiple unrelated articles), but sometimes it seems that we're letting an arbitrary software distinction dictate policy. Categories are just a nice embellishment to the articles themselves, it really doesn't make that much sense that it's so much easier to move an article yet so much harder to move a category, and that we have all these hoops upon hoops to jump through for relative trivialities. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's partly what we are used to. As you say, there is a rationale for controlling category changes. It's also a chance to put heads together, and frequently we find that more heads are better than one. Now that Qwerfjkl has tackled the huge backlog, the normal CFD procedure (full discussion) is being closed on a timely basis after a week. If you find CFDS too full of hoops, by all means open a full CFD discussion instead. These can still be closed after 2 days if they are considered eligible for speedy processing. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Cameroon categories[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

Thank you for correcting all of those British Cameroon categories. I should have guessed that they'd only be temporarily empty before I tagged them CSD C1. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Fayenatic London 08:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to a CFD[edit]

Could you help create the subcategories following this CFD? 42.200.55.113 (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that for HK Island and New Territories based on the lists in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. However, that list combines Kowloon and New Kowloon in one list. If you want to split that section into two, I could then set up categories based on it. Alternatively, please go ahead and create the categories yourself. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help create the other two categories too? Many can help subcategorising the articles manually. 42.200.55.117 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the side note: I don't understand why they are combined into one single list there, given the very small number of roads and streets which cross the boundary. 42.200.55.117 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please edit that list and split it into two, then. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I saw that you had split the list, so I set up two new categories based on it. I put Roads in New Kowloon under both Kowloon and NT, following the hierarchy for NK's parent categories – I trust that's correct.
There are a dozen roads left in the top category, which suggests that they are not named in the list – please check whether each of them needs to be added in the list. Maybe they are already represented in the list using redirects. Please also put them into one or more of the new categories, and the job will be finished. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category query[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

Since I deal with a lot of empty categories, something has been bothering me for awhile. There are a few editors who regularly empty categories "out of process". There's a script now that can show you which editors have added or removed pages from a category over the past few weeks. You would be familiar with these editors because they spend most of their time on Wikipedia recategorizing pages. But, technically, it's not supposed to be done this way, through CSD C1, editors are supposed to have categories deleted by making proposals at WP:CFD. Because these are very experienced editors who focus on categories, I've usually only brought this issue up when it occurs with new editors. But I found that Category:Topics in literature had been intentionally emptied and this actually seems like a category that we should keep, not a random category that only contained one article. I brought the issue up with the editor who emptied it and asked them to revert their edits which they haven't done. So, should I?

Just curious as to what you'd do about this specific instance and the problem in general. Thank you and have a pleasant weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, that script sounds useful! Where you have seen me trace former member pages, that wss either from the category creator's contribs, or via interwikis.
In this situation I suggest you make a procedural CFD nomination with option A for deletion, or option B to repopulate the category. In the nomination I would disclose who has emptied it out of process, with examples or (better) links to contribs. – Fayenatic London 07:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020–21 FIA World Endurance Championship season[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:2020–21 FIA World Endurance Championship season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No longer necessary for category navigation ~ single-year seasons are now findable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks ~ I thought I'd be able to find time to look into and fix this sooner. No luck yet, but it is next on my TODO list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academics of...[edit]

Please explain your close of the "Academic personnel in Europe" category rename request. It does not look to me like there was consensus for the move. It looks to me like you saw the discussion, didn't read the comments, and closed it as accepted despite the fact that there appear to be more objections or alternative proposals (and even an attempt at withdrawing the proposal) than supporting comments. What is the rationale for your close? How do you obtain a consensus to move from that discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: there was not support for "Academic personnel of", but there was support for "Academics of". (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_3#Academic_personnel_in_Europe) – Fayenatic London 16:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were roughly 16 opinions expressed in the discussion. Of them, Peterkingiron, Timrollpickering, Waggers, Necrothesp, and Jonathan A Jones supported "Academics of". Rathfelder, Oculi, myself, Justlettersandnumbers, SeoR, and 4meter4 expressed opposition to the move or did not support the "Academics of" wording. In what universe is five supporters and six opposing out of 16 (with no argument based on participants not being based on policy) consensus for support? Please reconsider your close before I take this to DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see support for 'Academics of', except in the UK and Ireland, ie the status quo. As the convention everywhere else in Europe is 'Foo faculty', a rename to 'Foo academics' might get support. (eg we now have Category:Academics of the Agricultural University of Tirana but Category:Agricultural University of Tirana alumni.) Changing 'Foo faculty' to 'Academics of Foo' is 2 changes, neither of them included in the nom. I did object to the bundling of 2 different changes in the nom (ie such as Category:Academics of Aberystwyth University to Category:Aberystwyth University‎ academic personnel etc), and by the same logic object to the closure. The nom should be re-opened but with the UK and Ireland excluded (as there is a consensus to keep these). Oculi (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I don't recognise your count of 16. There were many opinions expressed, but only by 14 editors. The opinions need to be read carefully, and the earlier ones treated as displaced by later statements or clarifications from the same person, because several stated "option x" but what they actually preferred was something different.
Thank you for your opinion of my reading ability. You somehow missed these:
I must say that I greatly prefer 'academics of' to 'academic personnel of'. Oculi (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
"academics of x" or "faculty of y" or "x faculty" are all superior … SeoR (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
If "Academics of ..." is preferred then no objection from me … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Overall, permitting overlaps between the following, I count eight in favour of "Academics of", four explicitly against "Academic personnel", and six against "Faculty" (Rathfelder, Santasa99, Joy, Peterkingiron, Waggers and Necrothesp). Only one stated that they wanted the university name at the beginning.
I noticed of course that Qwerfjkl had found consensus for "Academic personnel", but I did read and (I believe) digest all the opinions carefully before coming to the same conclusion. Qwerfjkl has been a huge help in closing an enormous number of CFDs in the last several months, and in many cases I now implement his closes without checking them in detail, but I knew this CFD was important as it was (i) large, (ii) controversial and (iii) would overturn a couple of smaller & briefer recent CFDs.
I was taken aback to be challenged by you, because I read your opinion as opposing the roll-out of "academic personnel" worldwide to replace both "academics" and "faculty". I did not pick up that you opposed "faculty" being replaced in Europe.
I see that WP:ENGVAR makes no mention of it now, but in the past it was recognised that in the absence of specific official translations, there was a presumption that namings for Europe/Commonwealth and South America should follow UK and US spellings respectively, due to proximity and influence.
If it is the change from "faculty" to "academics" that you would challenge, I certainly believe that there was sufficient consensus for this in the CFD (11 out of 14, with 8 for Academics and 6 against Faculty, including 3 stating both). – Fayenatic London 19:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition is to changing the status quo ("X faculty" and "X alumni" everywhere except in UK-based systems, where we use "Academics of X" and "Alumni of X") to an even-less-consistent system (sometimes "X faculty" + "X alumni", sometimes "Academics of X" + "X alumni", sometimes "Academics of X" + "Alumni of X" with no obvious rhyme or reason for which to use when), mostly based on opinions from Brits who like their nomenclature. " would introduce yet another gratuitous variation into the mix, for no good reason, and was not discussed so certainly could not be taken as a consensus outcome. I would also oppose a change to the British-English-only system, for reasons of WP:ENGVAR. My actual motivation is that when I create articles on academics I want to be able to predict the category name to put them in without having to take the effort to look it up every time because it varies every time. Under the old system I could do that; now I have to guess or look up. If you misread my statement so badly I don't see how you can be so sure you got anything else here accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by Your suggestion for "X academics". Perhaps there is a bigger problem with your own clarity of expression than you have yet recognised.
I was not expecting the second combination ("Academics of X" + "X alumni") to remain in use. @Marcocapelle: would you envisage renaming European alumni to match the word order on academics? – Fayenatic London 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about 'Academics of' was intended exclusively for the UK/Ireland categories; I was objecting to 'Academics of Foo' being changed to 'Foo academic personnel' (2 changes). I do not support 'Foo faculty' being changed to 'Academics of Foo' (which had not been suggested when I last opined). I might support 'Foo faculty' being changed to 'Foo academics' - there are quite a few examples of 'Foo academics' already; eg Category:Faculty by university or college in Uganda. Oculi (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two simultaneous discussions going on here, one about faculty versus academics, and another one about the sequence of the words in the category name (academics in front or after). I have no opinion on the latter and if I remember correctly few discussants commented on the latter. If sone people think it is preferable to align the sequence of words for academics and for alumni categories, then just go for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency and predictability, if Europe goes ahead, I am planning four follow-up discussions: first for Africa & Asia (excluding Philippines), second for Latin America, third and fourth for Canada and the Philippines. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would remove one source of concern to cover the alumni categories at the same time, at least by stating that they will be nominated afterwards to follow the pattern adopted for academics/faculty. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion, and in previous ones, a lot of people, including some Americans, indicated that the term "faculty" was not actually really clear. When so few people actually advocate for the status quo in these discussions, I don't think we should ascribe the issue to some sort of a British fancy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two experienced closers think there was consensus in this CFD to change all European categories to "Academics of".
I make no criticism of the nomination for combining two changes (word choice and word order). It is a lot of work to nominate a large number of categories. IMHO it would be unnecessary and undesirable to tag them all twice. One discussion can make both changes at once.
So I do not propose to reopen the discussion, but I will pause its implementation for a week in case David Eppstein, Oculi or any other editor wants to take it to WP:Move review. I will paste on the October 3 CFD talk page the full list of renames that I have compiled, including some that have already been renamed via the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These 2 experienced closers do not recall that 'Alumni of Foo' was only retained for the UK after a sustained rearguard action by UK editors against the global imposition of 'Foo alumni' at cfd long ago. I am amazed that word order is being treated as a side issue. Again I protest that a wide-ranging change is being made via a cfd of a change not listed in the nomination and not even seen by the initial commenters. We had options A, B, C, D (suggested by myself), and the actual change is Option Z6. (Rathfelder explicitly supported 'Foo xxx' throughout; I objected to the double change, Timrollpickering objected to the double change, many of the UK editors - drawn in by the inclusion of the outlying UK categories - were making comments that I interpreted as applying only to the UK/Ireland categories and not to the 'Foo faculty' ones. This is exactly what happened in the earlier one which reached a completely different conclusion: 2022_June_3#Category:Faculty_by_university_or_college_in_Finland. Here the closer took the last 2 opinions plus an unsourced article stub to ignore the nom, previous contributors and the rest of the tree. I had not expected anything other than a no-consensus close in both discussions with a possible relist with the latest option included. Oculi (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oculi: if you could find the long-ago CFD and link to it on germane category talk pages, that would be helpful. I went looking and only found this small 2009 CFD in which you said that "Alumni of" sounds much better to a UK ear. Well, I hope that "Academics of" is similarly melodious, and that "Foo alumni" will not be mightily defended against "Alumni of Foo" as siblings.
    The Finland CFD in June ended with pleas from the nominator Rathfelder and the estimable closer Jc37 for a wider debate (given the opposition to "faculty"), and I think we've had one. Right now the question is whether re-opening the CFD or going to MRV would give us a clearer basis for going forward. I'm thinking MRV. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think either would be fine - the goal of course being to have the discussion at a broader community forum, than here by a few, to apparently attempt to just circumvent the deletion discussions. By the way, kudos to you for handling this with seeming professionalism and grace.
    I don't know, but maybe an RfC on/of Academic personnel, to decide the fundamental question of naming, might be the best path forward. Then all the categories could be speedy renamed based off of that discussion. I think the MRV venue would be too limited in scope on its own, since it's more about the following of policy and procedure, than determining an outcome.
    Incidentally, for the record: "Here the closer took the last 2 opinions plus an unsourced article stub to ignore the nom, previous contributors and the rest of the tree." - This statement is completely false. Which should be self-evident by reading the closure, and for that matter, the discussion in question.
    As an aside, I really don't care where these end up, but I hope the discussions rely on more than the subjective bias of: "I never heard that" or "X sounds better to me". Where we can, we rely on verifiable reliable sources here. And I don't know - not having looked - but I would think that this is something people should be able to research?
    Anyway, I hope this helps. And of course I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Well, it looks like an MRV was started. It's existence doesn't prevent an RfC on the broader issue, I suppose, if that is wanted. - jc37 21:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On faculty of.., in much of the commonwealth the word faculty isn't often used for this meaning. 42.200.55.117 (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the discussion was not about universities in the commonwealth, so your argument is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move review initiated; see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, the MRV was closed here, and requires a partial relist. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Qwerfjkl. I somehow overlooked this ping as well, but have relisted the set today at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 26#Academics in Europe. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I invite you to strike your example of Manchester, which has been rebutted, and provide another if you can for UK usage of "academics" to mean academic activities rather than staff. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: you were envisaging follow-up nominations starting with one for Africa & Asia. I have no objection to including Russia and the Caucasus nations in the present nomination for Europe, but suggest that Kazakhstan and certainly Tajikistan should be removed and treated along with Asia.– Fayenatic London 09:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, I would never put Kazakhstan or Tajikistan in a European parent category myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary philosophy[edit]

According to the article only Western philosophy is counted. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see… but that page is tagged as failing to present a worldwide view. I would support boldly moving the page to Contemporary Western philosophy, as this would leave everything clearly understandable. It is not intuitive to exclude Category:Contemporary Chinese philosophy & Indian from Category:Contemporary philosophy. – Fayenatic London 13:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. And who has authority to say Chinese and Indian philosophy doesnt count? Rathfelder (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (and templates updated) – Fayenatic London 13:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder[edit]

This edit by Bigwig7 has a Rathfelder ring to it (Rathfelder created the category); Bigwig7 (not a prolific editor) on the whole only edits cfds in support of Rathfelder. Moreover editor interaction shows considerable overlap. Does this look suspicious to you? Oculi (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Not another one… why do people do this? is it an editorial death wish?
Yes, I see multiple patterns of socking there, e.g. continuing each other's interactions with you and Marcocapelle at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_29#Category:Head_Masters_of_Eton_College_educated_at_Eton.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Instead Senior Care is an older but similar example, excluded from the date range of your search. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all their cfd contributions are in support of Rathfelder. Architects from Dorset, architects by county, Eton ones, Harrow ones, judges, opera singers, 2 concerning Otolaryngologists, 2022 October 24#Category:Soviet people of Armenian descent, even the rfc on organizations. Oculi (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And another pattern is that sometimes Rathfelder merely comments in an AfD or CfD with some rationale in defence of his work but not !voting, and a little later Bigwig7 comes in with a Keep vote. – Fayenatic London 19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missing apostrophes. lets Bigwig7; lets Rathfelder. cant Bigwig7; cant Rathfelder. Oculi (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point inviting him to own up, is there? It's an absolute no-no for an established editor, as it was for user:Od Mishehu. – Fayenatic London 23:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there he was, gone. A notification has been posted at WP:AN. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His last edit, intersecting categories to the end. Oculi (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#Block_of_Rathfelder
User_talk:Girth_Summit#WPO_blog_post:_Rathfelder_–_"a_good_editor"
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#Review_request_re_my_unblock_of_Rathfelder

Syd Conabere[edit]

I was reading through Syd's article just now and thinking how some of it seemed awfully familiar! Thank you for incorporating my 2018 draft into the article! I never got around to finishing it, but I'm very gratified that Syd finally got his article (long overdue), and that you found my sandbox, which I hope helped a little to flesh things out before others jumped in to improve it. I see I left the external links a bit of mess as I had used Kerrie Biddell's article as a sort of template :) Thanks again! Bennycat (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennycat you're welcome, of course! Thanks for leaving this note of appreciation. Some editors don't seem quite so pleased when somebody else merges their apparently abandoned work into a live article.
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts so I'm officially joining it today! – Fayenatic London 11:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooian fooers[edit]

Your change to the template seems to have caused Category:Scottish Shakespearean actors & Category:Scottish Shakespearean actresses to miscategorise using lower case in Category:British shakespearean actors & Category:British shakespearean actresses. Can you please fix this otherwise I'll have to revert it. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timrollpickering: thanks for the notice. I have inserted code to resolve a redirect at the generated category name, and documented this on the template page. Is this workaround satisfactory? Please let me know any other problems that you come across – more "resolve" coding could be added if this would help. – Fayenatic London 11:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Special:WantedCategories I found three "British british" categories, easily resolved e.g. [4]. These were the only spurious categories that I spotted which were generated by Fooian fooers. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation of a category archive system?[edit]

@Fayenatic london, I noticed that the bot renamed the category as agreed upon, leaving a link to the CFD, but not to the discussion itself, since it got removed. I looked for an archive of the discussion, but couldn't find one. Which leads me to believe any discussions on WP:CFD get removed by either you or someone else supervising the page, after a decision/consensus has been reached. It would be useful to have the bot leave the link to the discussion itself so future watchers of the cat. page can use it for reference; maybe even bring it up if they feel the previous name was more fitting or a new consensus had been reached.

My proposal is that a category archival system is implemented for every past discussion, so that newcomers to the CFD would look up previous discussions and see if XYZ cat. name exists or not. Moreover, they would see how a certain discussion unfolded, thereby learning something new, like in my case, that the original name was more appropriate then the one proposed, albeit on an eponymous one was later agreed upon. It would be a beneficial addition to Wikipedia, in general, to have such an archive for the reasons mentioned above and to also keep track of them. Tell me what are your thoughts on this? Take care. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty284651: I have pasted a copy of the discussion at Category talk:WTA 1000 tournaments.
Full discussions at CFD are kept indefinitely, and one way to find these is by checking "what links here". It is only Speedy discussions that are not searchably archived. To check the rationale for these, and discussion if any, it is necessary to go through the history of the Speedy page. CFD regulars sometimes archive Speedy discussions on the category talk page if they are opposed and are then removed as stale, but I don't think we are in the habit of doing so if they are processed.
I hope you realise that it's only the Speedy page which is subject to rigid requirements – because it by-passes normal CFD recording, and is intended for certain simple cases that do not require discussion. You can still propose renaming to your preferred name in a full WP:CFD discussion.– Fayenatic London 18:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series) episodes[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I haven't seen this template/tag on a category before. Should this actually be proposed at CFD? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – I've tagged and listed the old category for speedy renaming. Pinging user:ZooBlazer for info. – Fayenatic London 15:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may have messed it up. I copied the template, but modified the reasoning listed from the other category which was recently created. Another user was trying to merge the histories, but the way I thought they had it set up, the category with "TV series" in the name would be the category merged into the one without "TV series" which is incorrect as the article for the show is listed as Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series). -- Zoo (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I have corrected my nomination, and merged the page content giving attribution – I think that's all that is needed. – Fayenatic London

Category:Parishes in the United States[edit]

I don't see how the discussion here authorised the deletion of Category:Parishes in the United States as a parent of Category:Church parishes in the United States. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert myself and take it to a full discussion if you prefer, but as it had only one sub-cat after that CFD, I thought it had become a pointless layer, and a dab page would make more sense than "see also" links. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the scope and layout of Category:Parishes would be the way to go for similar "by country" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only for countries that categories for both church and civil parishes. You could put Category:Louisiana parishes into it but, as they are counties with a different local name, wouldn't that be a blatant case of WP:SHAREDNAME? – Fayenatic London 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Parishes above is effectively a disambiguation category which is permitted under WP:SHAREDNAME. Why not have the same for USA / UK / Ireland ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right about Category:Parishes. Shouldn't that actually be a cat dab page, then, with only civil parishes going into Types of administrative division? – Fayenatic London 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the correct thing to do. And for for USA / UK / Ireland ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's disambiguate them, and put Civil parishes of the United Kingdom into Parishes of Europe, although IMHO it would be better to rename the latter as "Civil parishes of Europe". – Fayenatic London 17:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Freguesias is surely just SHAREDNAME as well, and should be merged & redirected to Category:Civil parishes by country – OK? – Fayenatic London 10:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: The Europe category is now Category:Civil parishes in Europe – using "in". Oops, I had not noticed that this was recently at a full CFD, so should not have gone through Speedy; but I think it's OK to leave it now, because you had resolved the grounds for objection.
Now, I see that Category:Civil parishes in England‎ and sub-cats also use "in", but I think a country's parish categories should use "of"; do you agree? If so, I'd take this to a full CFD, as the current name was chosen at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_16#Category:Parishes. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim sentiment[edit]

Hello Fayenatic london, I am unhappy with the merger of Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment into Category:Anti-Islam sentiment that you closed back in July. I am sorry that it didn't come to my notice till now. What is the procedure for reopening this discussion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: there were only 4 articles and a sub-cat in it at the date of the merger anyway, see [5]. If you want to open a fresh discussion, I suggest you nominate Category:Anti-Islam sentiment for splitting back to Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment, using the CFS template – see WP:CFD#HOWTO. If you do so, please refer to the previous discussions, which are listed at Category talk:Anti-Muslim sentiment. Let me know if you need help. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clean-up categories from 2023[edit]

Hello, Fayenatic london,

I just noticed that this category that you created was deleted. If you want to recreate it, you might use an {{emptycat}} (Empty category tag) so that it doesn't get deleted again.

I hope you are having a good week! Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. It appeared in Special:WantedCategories and I thought it was legitimate, because statements listing elected representatives taking office "As of 2023" using {{As of}} generate Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2023. However, Bearcat believes this is not permitted, and removed the template.[6] – Fayenatic London 10:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Albums produced by Judas Priest[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Albums produced by Judas Priest 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! 01:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fayenatic london,
I'm not sure if this category has been emptied out of process or just not filled up yet. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Liz. It was in Special:WantedCategories but I probably should have checked the article rather than assuming it was right and creating the page. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singlechart usages for Brazil has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Singlechart usages for Brazil 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. Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Television shows scored by James Horner[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Television shows scored by James Horner 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! 01:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Yes. Trivialist (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Trivialist: OK, thanks. It would be helpful if you would paste an explanation when removing categories from articles. – Fayenatic London 12:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted move question[edit]

Hello, thank you for accepting my large list of move requests here. I was under the impression that the bot would update the categories on the associated templates, but based on the associated parent category and the number of empty categories, they appear to have only done so with the categories that had a second year that ended with 00. Should I go ahead and fix the issue with AWB, or will the bot eventually finish cleaning up the categories? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: It looks as if the articles that were moved had the old category name typed in full, whereas the pages still in the old categories have the name generated using {{Title year2range}}, so the bot doesn't find the old name that it was looking for. So yes, please go ahead with AWB to change "standings]]" to "standings templates]]", because that's what a volunteer will have to do otherwise. – Fayenatic London 14:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, that makes sense since the template didn't work properly with those years. Thanks for the quick response, I'll start on this shortly. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting; please would you also post a request at Wikipedia:Requested templates reporting the problem in detail? – Fayenatic London 14:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I had with {{Title year2range}}? I figured it was intention behaviour that just didn't fit into what I was trying to accomplish. The issue occurred when the second year listed in the range ended in 00, it would use the full 4 digits of the year instead of using 2 digits. So I just manually entered those categories instead of messing around with things. Personally I didn't think it would be worth reporting, but if you think it is I'll drop a post there. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, it is intended to work, and I can think of editors who would probably be able to fix it neatly. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:RT:

I was discussing an issue I had while using the {{Title year2range}} template and Fayenatic london encouraged me to post about it here.

I tagged a bit over 1,000 templates while filling the subcategories of Category:American college ice hockey standings by season templates. The templates in these subcategories all use the same year range format of 4 digits, a dash, then the latter 2 digits of the second year in the range (1950–51, 1951–52, etc.). When I tried to add a category using this template to templates that had 00 as the second part of the range, it would produce a 4 digit year as the second part of the range instead of the expected 2 digit result that matches the title. I did not encounter this issue while populating any of the other 1,000+ templates. Here are some examples of the occurrences: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

If any of these subcategories are empty at the time of viewing, it's because I originally named them improperly, requested a mass move, and the bot did not update the categories on the templates when it moved the categories, which I'm currently working to fix.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Ah, sorry, I should have checked further. Category:1899–00 American college ice hockey standings templates is not in accordance with MOS:DATERANGE; it should be Category:1899–1900 American college ice hockey standings templates, which is what the template would generate. The template is fine. We just need to rename 1899–00 and 1999–00 again. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this template move [7] was mistaken and should be reversed (and all others like it). . – Fayenatic London 10:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Thanks for pointing me towards MOS:DATERANGE, time for a reread since I didn't have this committed to memory. While it bothers my OCD that it doesn't follow the pattern, I understand it's the standard, so I'll do some cleanup. Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by 2 parameters[edit]

For my records: Commons does not do them the same way. See User_talk:Andrybak#Categories_by_2_parameters. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Jin Southern and Northern Dynasties[edit]

Re this. The category should almost certainly be "Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern dynasties"—Northern is always put first in modern scholarship (See the subject article's name, category's name etc.) Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Sure, see [8] – Fayenatic London 10:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Also, I love your username design. Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Fayenatic London 21:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century sportsmen[edit]

After you salted Category:20th-century sportsmen, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_12#20th/21st-century_sportspeople, the parent Category:20th-century men is now full of sports subcategories. I cannot imagine that this was the intention of the discussion. In retrospect it may make sense to restore Category:20th-century sportsmen but just as a container category. Thoughts? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, were they added after that, or have they been there all along? e.g.[9] in 2014. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather not mix this up with a discussion about 19th-century categories and earlier, especially not because User:BrownHairedGirl referred to "consensus that by-century categorisies of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century" (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of companies formed by merger[edit]

Information icon Hello, Fayenatic london. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of companies formed by merger, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deferred deletion with a formatting edit. Hoping that User:UnitedStatesian will return and continue expanding the page. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Moumou82[edit]

This user is unilaterally changing 's' to 'z' for organisations in Tunisia (which used 's' apart from one exception which was adrift from the tree, and which I took to speedy yesterday). Eg this. Could you perhaps roll back their recent edits and explain the correct procedure? Oculi (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks indeed. That was almost instant. Oculi (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. Mass rollback is a handy tool to have in the arsenal. I hope I got all the Wikidata right – would be glad if you would check those. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err - Wikidata you say. What sort of thing would I be looking for? Oculi (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Checking that we have interwiki links on the live categories rather than the category redirects. To give credit to Moumou82, they did edit the Wikidata to update these links (and made other updates while they were there). – Fayenatic London 07:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done– the Wikidata links all look good. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Fayenatic london!

Happy New Year!

Fayenatic london,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
~~~~

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive28&oldid=1130855243"