User talk:BrownHairedGirl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl
Archives
BrownHairedGirl's archives
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Thanks + invitation[edit]

Stephanie-Cox-480.jpg

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, 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!

Merge Proposal[edit]

Hi there!

Rembrandt research in Australia[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I am researching a Rembrandt that may have been in the collection of Dr John Radcliffe 17th century inherited down to Dr J R Radcliffe 19th -20th century. Rembrandt was exhibited title Christ raising the daughter of Jarius in a major exhibition in Birmingham Art Gallery and Museum 1934 loaned by Dr JR Radciffe . I am attempting to link the two. Very difficult. Note The painting has been located in Australia with exhibition label,also no record of where the work is. I feel it was in the collection of Dr J Radcliffe as he did collect Rembrants work. For your interest. Regards Bryan Collie

Nikola Kicev[edit]

can you change my height in my bio :) 191 cm

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. 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.

Addition to list[edit]

Hi... Actress /Model Carmen Electra is From Ohio

👍

You have been[edit]

here for a time long enough to be expected to have the basic courtesy to notify a RFC closer that there is an issue with his/her close, (whatever the reason might be) and that the close is being subject to a challenge.Thank you.WBGconverse 19:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In all probabilities, I would have opened it, (in light of the low-participation argument) and would have spared you writing long passages at multiple venues. WBGconverse 19:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @WBG
I'm sorry. In hindsight, I should indeed have notified you.
However, if you read what I wrote, my main concern was not with the closure, but the weight which was being placed on an inadequately-notified and poorly-attended RFC. Neither of those were your doing, and my main concern was to ensure that those discussing implementation took a break to seek wider community input.
I don't think I made any comment on the closure, and I have just reviewed my contributions on this and can't find any which mention the close. (For the record, I do think your closure was broadly correct (although inadequately explained or qualified), but I deliberately chose not to query the closure because it seemed to me to be at most a very minor aspect of the problem I perceived, which was a huge bot run based on consensus of far too few editors.
If I had thought that your closure was significantly problematic, I wouldn't just have notified you; I would have directly asked you to reconsider it. But I didn't want to make any such request, so I didn't see any benefit to anyone in turning the focus on you.
I should have foreseen that in challenging reliance on the RFC, some editors would comment on the closure. And that even if they didn't, you had a stake in the discussion, regardless of whether anyone criticised your actions.
So I am sorry, and in future I will be more proactive in notification.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking to portals under construction[edit]

Hi again, we have built some automated links from category header templates to portals, which only check whether the portals exist. They don't check whether the portals are ready for use, and some are not, e.g. Portal:1910s exists but is tagged with {{Portal maintenance status|date=October 2018|incomplete=y|subpages=checked|broken=major}}.

Would it be feasible & worthwhile for templates to check the status of the portal, do you think? – Fayenatic London 14:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Yes on the worthwhile; dunno on the feasible.
If there was some way in which the cat header templates should check the status of portals, that'd be great. No point in signposting readers to a construction site.
But is there actually any way a cat header template could check? I can't think of any technique, but maybe you have some ideas. If not, maybe the clever techie folks at WP:VPT might have some suggestions on how this could be done.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: The major selling point of these new generation portals was that they are easy to set up and maintain. In theory, the era of broken portals should be over. But in practice (I suspect, I don't have the actual data) we now have more broken portals than before. Sometimes it's the empty sections like at P:1910s. Other times it's trying to transclude subpages that don't exist. But (again, just a guess) overwhelmingly it's the category tree. These mass-created portals always try to link to an eponymous category. The problem is that half of the time it doesn't exist. They don't exist because either someone hasn't bothered to create one (though this is rare; categorization works pretty well on Wikipedia and we've been doing it for ages). Or, usually, creating such a category would be prohibited per Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Sometimes the category gets deleted, but the broken cat tree stays on the portal!
Although Wikipedia is a work in process (in all namespaces), we should adopt a more immediatist standard for portals. This is only logical given the fact that they can now be created in no time. There are required items for every portal: Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Required (The cat tree is one of them. Almost all of these new era portals also lack the related portals section because it has to be compiled by hand. But we shouldn't pretend that a portal like P:1910s doesn't have any related portals. It has a ton.). I think we should be able to redirect all broken portals, especially those that miss one or more required items, to a parent portal. Such a redirect should be returned only when the portal is fixed. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I always check for links from portals (among other pages) when deleting a category; this has been an explicit requirement at WP:CFDAI since 2011 ([1]). Drop me a line about any cases that you notice, and I'll politely bring it to the attention of fellow admins who may be skipping that part of the task. – Fayenatic London 12:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: I'm talking about these specifically: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 11#Category:Sidney Poitier, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 11#Category:Jack Nicholson, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 11#Category:Yo-Yo Ma – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 19:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: Thanks. Well, I can't fault the closer for those. Although Portal:Sidney Poitier shows a red link to Category:Sidney_Poitier, the portal does not appear in the list Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Sidney_Poitier. This is surprising and frustrating to me. Simplifying the code, <categorytree>Sidney Poitier</categorytree> results in
no subcategories
which creates a link to that (now deleted) category, but the link is not detected using "What links here". It's the same with live categories; evidently this is a feature of the "categorytree" function. I suppose it is intended, as the designers probably did not want to create backlinks for the sub-categories. I must say I don't find it helpful that it doesn't create a backlink to the main category.
Well, now that you have seen that, it will be easy enough to fix the portal by replacing "{{PAGENAME}}" with "Films directed by Sidney Poitier". I can't think of a way to detect such cases as part of the CFD process, though. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's another surprise: Portal:Yo-Yo Ma currently still shows the contents even though the top category is deleted, like this:
Yo-Yo Ma
Yo-Yo Ma albums
I purged the cache but still it shows the above. I have no idea how that happens. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The portal has the boilerplate wikitext {{#tag:categorytree|{{PAGENAME}}}}. It could be replaced by a call to a simple new template which invisibly records a link to the top category, perhaps by doing #ifexist: on it. That would also make it easy to suppress the section whenever the top category doesn't exist, if that's desirable. Certes (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Certes: Nice idea. I tried this [2] and it worked, so I have now incorporated that link into {{Category tree}} and {{Category tree all}}. I don't think we want to suppress the categorytree on a portal if the default category doesn't exist, as we should show that the parameter needs replacing; so I changed Portal:Sidney Poitier to use {{Category tree}} (rather than #tag:categorytree which simply calls the categorytree extension). That change has the effect of displaying the category tree within a box/border;[3] if this is not wanted for portals, we could make a separate template to use in portals e.g. "Category tree borderless". – Fayenatic London 09:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: good fix. But the underlying problem here derives from the drive-by creation of microportals, with nobody interested in maintaining them. Portal:Sidney Poitier has only one sole link from content pages, so it averaged less than one pageview per day until discussed here. Sorry, @Certes, but this is just a pointless make-work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've stopped activities which assist portal creation until we reach consensus on what portals to have (or a reasonable time elapses without it), but I think this change fixes existing portals rather than encouraging new ones. Certes (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Certes: This change would only fix existing portals if someone (you or user:The Transhumanist?) would be willing to replicate the code revisions[4] into them. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There are about 3000 of them, so this sounds like a job for a bot rather than someone pressing the AWB Save button. I am no longer comfortable with carrying out bulk edits in this area myself. Certes (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I despair at what's happening. Face-sad.svg
The whole point of a web portal is that it is a curated and structured pathway to content. Sadly, what's happening now is that some programming enthusiasts have figured out a quick-and-dirty way to engage in drive-by-creation on en.wp of pseudo-portals with no curation and no commitment to maintain them. If this is what the portal namespace is becoming, I will support removing the portal links from categories. It's misleading our readers to signpost them into these back holes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
IMHO that's overstating both the expectation and the problem. Serious students of a topic probably navigate Wikipedia using key articles, lists and categories. However, there are also casual readers here, who click from one topic to another somewhat randomly, partly according to what looks interesting. Wikipedia portals may serve the second group, providing some "Did you know"-type links that you wouldn't get from a list or category. This would work even without curation. – Fayenatic London 11:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi BHG, apparently the link could be made conditional by modifying Module:Portal, see reply at VPT by Trappist the monk. That's beyond me, but would you like to have a go? – Fayenatic London 10:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: I am not good at Lua (just a hacker who can do soe crude stuff), and in any case I am not sure clear is rquired here.I suggest that it would be best to ask for help in the WP:VPT thread, where there are people much more skilled than me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Anybody interested: Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portals#Excluding_links_to_broken_portals on whether links to broken portals should be removed. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lepidoptera described in the 18th century[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidoptera described in the 18th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1788–89[edit]

Hi there. Since you proposed the United Kingdom general election, 1832 move over a week ago, which I personally chose to abstain from, I have got to ask: why not propose a similar move at United States presidential election, 1788–89? Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Neveselbert
The reason proposed reverting the move of United Kingdom general election, 1832 which you had initiated is because the sources don't support the title which you invented.
I have done a lot of study of UK elections, but I don't study elections in the United States in enough detail to make any assessments of the sources there. So I have no idea whether or not those sources support the current title of United States presidential election, 1788–89, and am happy to leave that decision to the editors with the relevant expertise.
Why do you think that I should propose that the US article should be moved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Name of sport from collective noun for players[edit]

Hello, I just ran across this template, and I'm not quite clear what its point is. Would you mind adding a noincluded description of what it's intended to do and when to use it? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Nyttend: a whatslinkshere would give you some pointers Face-smile.svg
It's only a few hours old, and still under construction. It's a helper template, part of a scheme of categ header templates I am building and deploying for the Olympics. I'm not yet sure whether it's name could be improved. I will document it when it's stable.
It is used in a few hundred cats already, e.g. Category:Snowboarders at the 2014 Winter Olympics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I already checked WhatLinksHere and saw that it's used in a bunch of those categories :-) I just wondered if you could write a sentence or two now? Perhaps "this is meant for use in category-header templates to simplify linking to certain kinds of sports", if that's your intention; I just found it unusual to see a template with all its content includeonlyed, and since it wasn't directly transcluded much of anywhere, I could only guess at how other templates were using it. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: is there some particularly pressing reason that you can't wait a few hours? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
None at all: it was important for me to ask now, but not important for you to respond quickly. I'm just about to go to bed, and I'm confident I'd forget to ask you if I put it off until tomorrow, but since the question would be sitting on your talk page, I figured you'd get around to answering it eventually :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: after several name changes, the template is now at Template:Winter Olympics article name of sport from term for players, where it is documented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the documentation! Had you not kept responding with statements that produced more questions in my mind, I wouldn't have kept leaving messages here last-night-my-time; I'm sorry I made you feel pressured. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejected draft Philip McDonagh[edit]

I hope this is not a wrong thing for me to do. For silly misinformed reasons I created 3 articles in draft. I could have done it in mainspace and will never again make the same mistake. It was bad enough that Bkissin rejected one on Bob McDonagh particularly for the reason he gave (npov) !! but I am trying to address his points and have ordered a book from the library which will hopefully provide another reference. But I have just found that he has rejected Philip McDonagh . I was quite pleased with the references I found and cannot see how I can get more. He says that if I cannot, he is not a suitable candidate for an article and would be rejected. If that is the case, I may as well give up. Can you take a look. I still have an article on Daithí Ó Ceallaigh awaiting review.Aineireland (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aineireland: sorry to hear that.
I would be happy to take a look, but I will need links to the drafts. Please can you post them?
I do hope you can write an article on Daithí Ó Ceallaigh. I met him once in a very formal setting, and he was delightful: charming, clever, incisive and friendly. I do hope that there are enough sources for an article on him to pass WP:ANYBIO.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I have found them:
  1. Draft:Philip McDonagh — rejected
  2. Draft:Bob McDonagh — rejected
  3. Draft:Daithí Ó Ceallaigh — awaiting review
I am surprised by the two rejections. All three drafts seem to me to be well-sourced, neutral and formal.
If I was to criticse them, the worst I could say us that is the prose is a little stilted, and the referencing style could use some tweaking. But those are minor issues which can be resolved in normal editing.
So in summary, they seem to me to be good stubs, which without much more work could be improved to start-class.
Pinging @Bkissin: please can you explain why you thought that Draft:Bob McDonagh has an informal tone? And why you believe that Draft:Philip McDonagh is non-notable? It seems to me that https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/alumni-and-friends/floreat-domus/2006/balliol-s-ambassadors is alone sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO. A Google search for "Philip McDonagh" ambassador throws up many more sources to allow expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In terms of both men for notability, I was working from a discussion I had with Bearcat regarding the notability of Canadian diplomat Draft:Louise Blais, in which he suggested

The notability test for diplomats is "has enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG", not "every diplomat who exists is automatically entitled to an article"

Since Bob's article only references two sources, both his obituary, it certainly didn't pass that test. In terms of informality, lines like "it was not a role that suited him" and the information about the 1000 diplomatic biographies seemed superfluous and puffery. Same with the Philip McDonagh article. The sources provided do very little to establish his notability as a diplomat, and his classics-based work or presidency of the Oxford Union is not inherently notable. Neither is his notability inherited just because his father is also a diplomat.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely struggled with the decision to decline these drafts. They probably have a clearer path to notability than the article on Louise Blais I mentioned above. But at this current time, it is lacking in several areas and has yet to make it over some important notability hurdles. Bkissin (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bkissin: Thanks for the prompt reply.
With all due respect to Bearcat, he is not policy; and I don't think his points are relevant here. These are senior diplomats of an EU member state, but that's not the grounds on which I assert notability.
In the case of Bob, there are two substantial articles, so WP:GNG is clearly met. The fact that they are obituaries is not relevant to policy: both major Irish newspaper have written lengthy summaries of his life and career, which they do for v few people. The sentence about the collection of biographies is arguably trivial, but even if that argument holds merit (and I dispute it), the inclusion of one item of trivia at the end is not a reflection of the overall tone, which describes his career.
As to Philip McDonagh, you are applying a different test. Instead of looking for substantial coverage per GNG, you are demanding that the coverage must focus on his importance as a diplomat. I see no policy basis for this. And as I note above, there are many many more sources; I am disappointed that you chose to not even acknowledge this.
These articles would clearly survive a discussion at WP:AFD, so per WP:AFCPURPOSE they should be accepted. Please will you reverse your decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Rory Stewart[edit]

Greetings. A number of recent I/P edits on Rory Stewart purely change the image. One of the images appears to me to make him look a fool and I reverted on the assumption it was vandalism but has been claimed to be the official photo. What's the best way to resolve this? Regards JRPG (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @JRPG
I hope you'll forgive me a little levity. My initial instinctive response was that the best solution would be to modify the man himself so that he ceased to look like a gawky 15-year-old who has escaped from the cast of the 1968 film If.... .
That is of course unfair, and it is no solution. However, being serious again, Stewart's unconventional appearance does make it very to get unflattering photos of him. Obviously, en.wp's WP:NPOV policy means that we are not in the business of using images to depict anyone in an unfavourable light ... but in this case, it seems likely that many drive-by-editors will want to take the opportunity. There may even be some web forum somewhere that is encouraging some sort of LOLZ-type pranking.
The only solution I can see is semi-protection, so that only registered users can edit the page. Would that be OK with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd be absolutely thrilled! IMHO political pages seem prime targets for vandalism. JRPG (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@JRPG:: Glad we agree. I have semi-protected the page[5] for 3 months. That should be long enough for whatever source is driving this to forget about it and go find some other mischief, but if the vandalism resumes when the protection expires in early February, then longer-term protection would be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for protecting the page and thanks to PamD for the info. I strongly believe the subject should be able to choose the picture and have myself uploaded photos for both main parties. FWIW and your amusement I was asked to change a photo of an inner-London Labour MP looking exhausted in a posh Swiss ski resort -a 'friend' had uploaded it! Whilst the Tories are not my favourite party, both Rory Stewart and Sarah Wollaston won open primaries and have attractive ideas. I believe open primaries are the way forward for the moribund UK political system. My own MP came from Kent, is a former Westminster councillor still living in Westminster and rarely visits the constituency. He was described in the Telegraph as a perennial candidate & and although we provide a safe seat we were his fifth choice. Rant over -thanks for your help! JRPG (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it may well be that the controversial photo was one of the set of official portraits, and was correctly sourced and permissioned, but has now been removed from public sight: if you look here there are just a handful of MPs, including Stewart, who seem not to have an official portrait. Perhaps someone decided it was just too unflattering. PamD 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Mark Spencer (British politician) is another without a photo on that Parliamentary list, and his photo is certainly not particularly attractive. PamD 16:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Official_United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_photographs_2017 PamD 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Macrolanguage redirect[edit]

Moved to Template talk:Lang § Macrolanguage categories: Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

CFD[edit]

On a related topic, I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Category:Organisations based in Ireland. I have no wish to open further cans of worms but it seems to me that an editor noticed by both of us is using 'Ireland' to mean ROI, as well as introducing 'z' and maybe 'Irish' and possibly 'of' and possibly 'in' at random. Oculi (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oculi: can you give me some examples? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Any in Category:Organisations based in the Republic of Ireland which don't mention Republic. Category:Consumer organizations in Ireland is a good example. Category:Irish writers' organisations perhaps. Oculi (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox GAA club[edit]

BHG, I am writing you about this because I see you have worked on this before.

This Infobox template is causing major overcategorizing in GAA articles. For instance, Mount Leinster Rangers GAA. The categories- Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in the 1980s, 1987 in Gaelic games, Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1987 are all being put on the page by the template when only Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1987 is the only one needed. The other two are parent categories of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1987.

I don't know how to fix this overcategorizing. Can you help?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @William
The infobx wasn't properly update when the by-year cats (e.g. Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in 1987) were created. I'll sort it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks BHG. I wasn't blaming you for what happened. I came here because you have done a great deal of work on that template....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
No prob, @William. I didn't think you were blaming me. And no biggie if you had been Face-smile.svg
Anyway, I got it sorted. I tidied up a lot of he code, but the major change in output is the that:
  1. It no longer populates both Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in the YYY0s and Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs established in YYYY. One or the other (depending on the value of the "founded" parameter), but not both.
  2. It no longer populates either Category:YYY0s in Gaelic games or Category:YYYY in Gaelic games. As you rightly note, it already puts them in the appropriate subcat.
Please can you take a peek at a few pages and see if you sot any glitches? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good work! I don't see any glitches and I checked out a half dozen GAA articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @William. One of the downsides of automated categorisation via infobox is that it can need a hefty dose of template coding when category structures change. I hope that this one is now sorted for a while. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Great article creation/improvement in List of World Heritage sites in North Africa! Keep it up!

Please improve the article, specifically add third-party sources, if and when you add the time. Happy editing! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 06:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, this message was mistakenly sent; feel free to disregard it. Thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 06:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are you persecuting me?[edit]

Please leave my page alone!

Who do fuck do you think you are?

You stupid fucking woman!

David Michael Hawkins 12:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkinsdavidmichael (talkcontribs)

@Hawkinsdavidmichael: In answer to your three points
  1. I am not persecuting you. I made one edit to your userpage to remove a non-existent category per WP:REDNOT
  2. I am a Wikpedia Administrator
  3. Charming. Not.
And you are now indefinitely blocked, because your 15 edits in 6 years are entirely self-promotional. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an enyclopedia, so goodbye. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)I'm sure there was something wrng with his strategy there; I just can't quite put my finger on what... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, @Serial Number 54129. I have given him the gift of time off to speculate about the difficult question of where the flaw might be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar of Swaziland Eswatini[edit]

Flag of Eswatini.svg Barnstar of Swaziland Eswatini!
For your hard work in getting the ball rolling with a mass rename of Swaziland categories. Nice work! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Men’s in freestyle skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics[edit]

Good morning. English is not my mother tongue, but this name does not sound particularly English to me. Shouldn't it be smth like Category:Men’s freestyle skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics? I guess there are other categories with the same issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ymblanter. Yes it should omit the "in". Same for Category:Men’s in freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics, and .
I have just checked, and see that I made an error in both in my nomination at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 1#Men's_and_Women's_Winter_Olympics, where I also forgot to remove the word "in" from 4 short track speed skating cats.
Nobody else spotted them until now, when you were eagle-eyed.
Since the grammar is obviously wrong and obviously an oversight, I suggest that the glitch simply be corrected without further CFD.
Pinging the two other participants in that discussion. @Nimrodbr and Lugnuts: is it OK with you to just remove the word "in" from the following 6 categories, and at the same time change the close-quote to an apostrophe in the last two:
Also asking the closer @Good Ol’factory: would agreement here be sufficient to modify the outcome? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi BHG. Yes, fine with me - go for it! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I guess normally we do not need a CfD for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. Nimrodbr (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me as the closer. And I'm fine for @BrownHairedGirl: to implement. If you don't want to do it, BHG, ping me back and I can do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
We just need to feed it to a bot at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working giving in an edit summary a link here. I will later fix redirects and delete categories with a typo in the name.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks like we also have Category:Women's in short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics. I will have a look later.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks
I have just processed 4 more:
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for all your help cleaning up my mess, @Ymblanter. I think we are all done here now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Another template[edit]

Festivals established in are overcategorizing category pages by putting both Recurring events established in and establishments in on these pages. Where can I try fixing this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: from the big text editnotice above "Please help me to locate what you are referring to, by including links and diffs in your message". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Category:Festivals established in 1960 for example. The categories Recurring events established in 1960 and 1960 establishments are being added by the template but 1960 establishments is the mother category of Recurring events established in 1960....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @WilliamJE:. Good catch.
I have changed Template:Festivals by year of establishment cat so that it no longer populates Category YYYY establishments, and I have also taken the opportunity to make it parameterless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again. I think there are a couple of other templates that need fixing but at the moment I don't recall them. Category pages that are overcategorized/miscategorized but not because of templates I take care of all the time. Would you believe restaurants established being a subcategory of retail companies established? I fixed that but it still makes me shake my head.
Another thing. Should this[[6]] really be a subcategory of WP:Template:Organizations established in the year It seems the other subcategories of organizations are very different from Companies. Companies IMHO should just just straight into the straight yearly establishment category. What do you think?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: please do let me known about any more that need fixing, when you spot them.
Companies are a type of organization, so I am fine with them being categorised as such.
I'm also OK with restaurants being categorised as retailers. They are retail caterers, supplying read-to-eat-food to individual end customers, in contrast to wholesale caterers who supply read-to-eat-food to customers who buy in bulk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Another template issue but different than above. Hidden categories are appearing on US state establishment pages which they haven't in the past. Category:1981 disestablishments in New Jersey for example....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: My doing. It's part of a plan to make more of the by-year cats parametersless. See Template:YearParamUsageCheck, Template talk:YearParamUsageCheck and Category:YearParamUsageCheck tracking categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Dutch supercentenarians for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Dutch supercentenarians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol[edit]

Correct approach is to match the category name with the article name. No worries, I will bring the subject to WT:FOOTY... MYS77 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@MYS77: Per the big bold editnotice at the top of the edit screen, If you leave a message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you direct me to a discussion elsewhere
Similarly, I posted on your talk, so we will continue there. It makes no sense to split a discussion between two pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Weird edit[edit]

Hey there. I just came across an article on a Random Article hop (it keeps me occupied) and it had an odd edit. Looks like some strange unintended subscripting. It was an edit you performed, but I'm confident the subscripting wasn't intended and something went wrong. Normally I'd just correct it and move on, but I am letting you know just in case it was something odd with the Popups tool that you may wish to be aware of. The edit in question was here. I've just corrected the oddness. Any ideas what could have happened? Canterbury Tail talk 23:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Oops! I do somehow have a knack of whacking the subscript button by accident (but not other buttons; I dunno why subscript is a magnet for my mouse pointer). I usually catch it in the edit window, but it looks like I missed that one, which was clumsy of me.
Thanks for the fix, and for kindly pointing it out to me. I better up my checking levels for that glitch, as well as send my mouse to re-education camp. I don't like leaving a mess for others to clean up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, my mouse finger has a habit of just randomly clicking whether I want it to or not so I do understand. Again it wasn't an issue, just thought you'd like to know and wanted to be sure it wasn't some kind of tool issue. If it's just a pure PEBKAC, well happens to us all. No harm done. Canterbury Tail talk 23:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail: had to Google PEBKAC. I like it!
In the same spirit as the most unreliable part of my motor car being the nut behind the wheel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:1830s establishments in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Has a link to a non-existent portal (1830s) in it. Don't know if you can fix it, but I am just letting you know....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Thanks. Another good catch!
There was a glitch in the template, and also in the corresponding disest template. Both now fixed[7], [8]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilene Macia[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message! I suppose that I made a mistake, the name of the Mozambican district was really changed to Bilene only. I suppose that I should have moved the whole page to the new name...do you suggest that? Please reply in my page. Thanks again. Teixant (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Teixant: If you have a reliable source indicating the name change, then edit the article Bilene Macia District to explain when the name was changed, and WP:CITE the source. Then open a WP:RM to have the page renamed. If that succeeds, use WP:CFDS to rename Category:Bilene Macia District. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

R gopalakrishnan Wiki page[edit]

Greetings for the day. Hope you are doing good. My name is Kishan Shetty and I work with a creative agency. As an agency, I work for Mr R . Gopalakrishnan as for his social media needs. There was a recent change in his Wiki page as instructed by MR. R Gopalakrishnan which I did dedicate much of my time. Its a humble request from my side just to bear with the changes.

Thank you for valuable time, with any query please feel free to get connected on kishans7@orrigemhub.com

Regards Kishan Shetty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishanshetty03 (talkcontribs) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


I got this message Hello, Kishanshetty03, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to R Gopalakrishnan does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

But the content was taken from The person himself, similarly in various articles, news and even his website "themindworks.me" you can find the same mentions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishanshetty03 (talkcontribs) 09:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kishanshetty03: That is not acceptable conduct. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

IP address 36.81.137.50[edit]

You left a warning to IP address 36.81.137.50 about vandalizing, but this user is still doing so, but on the Michael McConnohie page[9], this user is not giving any reasons why and shows no signs of stopping.-RickBlackShades (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@RickBlackShades: thanks. Final warning issued[10] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia–European Union relations[edit]

You recently created category:Republic of Macedonia–European Union relations. Is there some reason that you excluded the main article Accession of Macedonia to the European Union? Dimadick (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I didn't exclude anything. I created many such categories, and I'm sure there are many articles with which they could be populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lock page[edit]

The Vampire Hunter D page[11] has been getting vandalized since May of this year, each time it's a different address and this person shows no signs of stopping. Do you think it's time to lock the page so that only users can edit it?-RickBlackShades (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@RickBlackShades: Thanks. I have semi-protected Vampire Hunter D for 6 months.[12] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ras Al Khaimah and categories[edit]

Hiya. I keeps a'-askin' and nobody seems to know the answer. The pages Ras Al Khaimah and Umm Al Quwain have both been moved from their archaic spellings (Ras al-Khaimah and Umm al-Quwain), thus resulting in every single category and template referring to them now being spelled wrong. When you reverted me, I was in the process of following every category 'tree' to the end and then going up the tree renaming categories - the idea being to clean up the branches before renaming the top category (category: Ras al-Khaimah) so avoiding redlinking all the subsidiary categories, if you get me. It's a Herculean task, though and CFD isn't (IMHO) the way to go - it's just as much work as renaming them myself manually. Is there NO way to automatically now replace the text Ras al-Khaimah to the new, consensus, spelling? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For Categories you have to go through WP:CSD to rename them, although you can batch nominate for renaming. For individual Articles you can use the move button unless there are technical impediments. For mentions within articles, you just have to manually search and find each one, via [13], and then Control+F once you are inside an article. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Edited to add: The Advanced Search function also lets you choose which type of page you are searching for: [14]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: you are making a rod for your own back here.

If you go through CFD, a bot will do all the category renamings for you, and leave no redlinks. Yes, it will take a few minutes to learn how to make the CFD nomination, but once you have learnt that you will have a skill you can use again and again. Even with the first-time learning curve, it will still be much faster and much more accurate than doing it manually.

If you like, I am happy to talk you through the steps. Just give the word, and I'll show you how. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiya. I already did most of 'em manually and hadn't realised how close to the end I was. So I've done the balance as CFDs and that should clean things up. If I goofed up anywhere, do let me know! Thanks! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is another one for you[edit]

Category:Russian fighter aircraft 2000–2009 is categorized both Russian aircraft 2000–2009 and Russian military aircraft 2000–2009 when the latter is a subcategory of Russian aircraft 2000–2009....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)