This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
26 August 2015

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Collaboration categories[edit]

Sure, go ahead. I not that well educated since I don't have a GED. Please make sure to update the template's documentation after doing that. JJ98 (Talk) 05:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about CfDs[edit]

Hi, Fayenatic london,
I closed a couple CfD nominations which were obvious keeps. Looking over the past few weeks, it seems like the open cases either a) were very complicated or b) had no participation other than from the nominator. From what I read, it seems like even just one other editor weighing in on a nomination is sufficient to close a nomination which seems like a low bar for participation, especially compared to other deletion discussions (AfD, TfD, MfD). My questions to you are:

1) Is it preferred to leave cases open rather than close as no consensus? Many of the still open cases don't indicate any consensus among editors who frequently end up proposing alternative resolutions.
2) When the resolution is to Listify or (groan) Articlize, who is responsible for taking on this responsibility? According to the categorization guidelines, there are a lot of categories that should be turned into lists rather than existing as categories but I don't see any mechanism for soliciting help from an editor willing to do this work.

That's all right now. I appreciate you responding to my questions! Liz Read! Talk! 16:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:
Thanks for helping with CfD. I was thinking recently of reminding you that you had said you would, but I looked at your contribs and you were already very busy on other areas, so I left it. Glad you are now on board!
Here is a link to the pointers & options on low-participation CfDs that I gave before. As for the questions above:
  1. This is an art, not a science. Relisting and posting notices may help. Sometimes a consensus can emerge late. Sometimes there is a consensus to do something, i.e. anything but keep, and in such cases I think the closer has wide discretion to choose the option that has most support or best fit with policy or precedents. In particular, late suggestions may be the best, even if nobody else has noticed and supported them. Sometimes a no-consensus close can be followed by a new nomination that picks up emerging ideas and does gain consensus, e.g. Realtors-1 and Realtors-2 (one of mine).
  2. This one is easy: there is a section for Listify requests at the Manual page WP:CFDWM. Any editor may pick them up from there. Sometimes I make a very basic list and then post a request for a relevant WikiProject to develop it. Which are the guideline pages where I might add a link to the Manual page?
Fayenatic London 20:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link back to our earlier discussion. I appreciate you sharing your experience with me...I remember more admins closing cases when I first started participating in CfD in the summer of 2013 and you certainly are taking care of quite a lot of them these days.
The best page to link to is probably Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes as all of the pages I've read on categorization are about guidelines and principles, not explanations of what happens at CfD. I had no idea that WP:CFDAI and WP:CFD/W even existed until you pointed them out to me. Then I did a prefix search (Special:PrefixIndex) to find out what other procedural pages were out of view.
The instructions at WP:CFD could probably be revised at some point as I think they are confusing to editors unfamiliar with CFD or ones that don't use Twinkle. I did my first nonmanual posting with Twinkle at CfD today, it is so much easier but it omits posting notices on relevant editors' talk pages or at WikiProjects that concern the suggested categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks from me too for helping out : )
I created a linkbox userbox Template:User Catbox, which I found helpful. As for closing instructions, Wikipedia:Deletion_discussions for general guidelines, which points to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions for more specific ones. Do you think it needs updating? - jc37 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jc37: That looks useful. How about a User Admin Catbox, with WP:CFDAI, WP:CFDS, WP:CFDW, WP:CFDAC, WP:CFDWM, WP:CFDWR, WP:CFDWL? – Fayenatic London 14:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
lol sure, maybe just an all around WP:CFD userbox. Incidentally, I also did a talk version of catbox called Template:User Cattalk as well. - jc37 18:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Category:Reliable sources[edit]

I closed this as a rename but I'm not sure reading WP:CFDAI whether I should move the category myself or list it at WP:CFD/W. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 11:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Liz: CFDW is protected, so you won't be able to edit it as a non-admin. As this is a small category, it will be easy enough to move the page and then update the members manually.
I have had a go at clarifying CFDAI on this. Better now? I'll look later at the other pages you suggested above. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I will give it a lookover and move that category. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Liz: would you like to close the following day as well? There are two left which IMHO are not complicated. That would complete the month of April. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Fayenatic. I was taking a short break from Wikipedia. Sure, I'll close those two if you haven't already taken care of it. It'll be good practice. Thanks for thinking of me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Category:Chief executives in the healthcare Industry, it seems like a clear keep but I'm unsure about the rename where you state "rename to lowercase". It seems like the words are in the proper case already, which ones need to be changed?
Regarding Category:Monumente istorice and Category:Heritage registers in Romania, do the histories of the two pages need to be merged as in the case of article mergers? I'll rename Category:Heritage registers in Romania and reassign articles that are in Category:Monumente istorice to the new Category:Historic monuments in Romania, but I'm unsure about the category merger regarding the page histories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all the more for your willingness to help! I can't close those two, as I participated in them. Re the first one, the word Industry has a spurious capital i.
As for merging page histories for categories, this is a novel issue, because until recently it wasn't possible to move category pages at all. I suggest you don't worry about it, unless you come across a category with history that seems particularly worth keeping. I might have suggested moving Monumente istorice to the new name, and editing Heritage registers to make it a redirect, since someone might otherwise re-create it as a separate tier; that way both histories would have been preserved. I see you have moved the latter instead; no problem, I'll just delete the other, leaving a link to the new one in the deletion log.
As for the sequence of actions, please remember to close a CfD discussion first, then implement it. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I will take this advice to heart. I thought that the decision was to merge Monumente istorice so I thought that would be the category deleted and Category:Heritage registers in Romania does exist as a redirect to the new category. I'll rename Chief executives in the healthcare Industry with a lowercase i.
I had to read through the CfD discussion several times to determine the actual rename approved of because several variations were proposed. But I did do the rename and merger before closing the discussion and I will do them in the appropriate order in the future. Thanks for your guidance, FL. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind and redirected Category:Monumente istorice instead of deleting it, as it is possible that an editor might try to use it again. Also, you can now see from the page history how I redirected it. (I'm not sure why you just removed the CfD template, nor why another editor reparented the category, but it doesn't matter now.)
One thing you won't see from my contribution history here is the steps I took to merge the links at Wikidata. When I looked at Category:Monumente istorice, it still had the interwiki links to the foreign language Wikipedias. That would have been a good reason for choosing to move that page to the new name – when you move a category or other page, Wikidata is updated automatically, and this usually happens instantly. Strictly speaking, looking after Wikidata goes above and beyond the tasks required to implement closures in En wiki, but I like to see things through, and nobody has contested the Wikidata steps that I added at WP:CFDAI. On the other hand, perhaps I have made things too complicated and put people off from closing CfDs. I would welcome your views.
A step which I would certainly encourage you to do is to check "what links here" on the old categories, and update/remove those that matter, as detailed in CFDAI. I've done them for this CfD, e.g. [1]. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Works[edit]

Just a quick note: I was going through my deleted edits (as I sometimes do) and saw a discussion we had which was deleted per housekeeping. I restored it and moved it to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive/Works and media for potential future reference. I thought you'd like to know. - jc37 18:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Song PRODs[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Your handling of the recent Hostyle Gospel song PRODs seems unusually diligent to me, and I'd like to thank you for that. Rather than simply removing the pages with expired PRODs (which itself would be a helpful maintenance service to the Wikipedia community), you also took the time to go find everything that linked to them and clean up the cross-references as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Thank you very much! It's what I do, mainly at WP:CFD. From my early days on Wikipedia I noticed that deletions and even renames were leaving redlinks behind, even though WP:Deletion process and WP:Guide to deletion say these should be resolved as part of implementing the close. I got this step spelled out further in all admin instructions for deletions (PROD, AfD and CfD) as normal practice. I sometimes remind other deleting admins about this step of the process, hopefully in a way that does not get up their noses. Anyway, thanks very much for your appreciation. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Category clean up[edit]

Can you take a look at this discussion? There's a link to the AN discussion, there's been some mass moves of cats (along with other things), and it'd be helpful to have someone familiar with categories handle this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

CfD strategy[edit]

Hello—I'm brand new to working on the category namespace, and I have a quick question for you regarding your recent post to WP:CFDS: Did you do this diff [2] by hand or is there a way to do this with Twinkle? I used Twinkle to tag two related categories for renaming, but then I had to merge my listings manually. Thanks! —jameslucas (" " / +) 20:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

jameslucas: I did that manually, adding a * at the start of a new line and then copying and pasting from each category page. I've never tried TW, mainly because I used to see people making inadvertent mistakes with it; perhaps it's time I reconsidered. User:Liz, you use TW; is it useful for building multiple CFD nominations? – Fayenatic London 21:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, although I've had Twinkle for a while now, I didn't use it to post CfD nominations until recently. I also haven't done mass nominations. I am usually just proposing a merger, deletion or rename for one or two categories at a time. I tend to stay clear of discussion where editors are proposing changes to hundreds (or thousands) of categories. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it sounds like my Twinkle-then-merge approach may not be as naïve as it felt as I was doing it, at least for nominations on the order of 2–5 categories. Thank you both! —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 326 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Totalitarian dictatorships[edit]

Hi, Fayenatic,
I was wondering what you thought about the recently created categories, Category:Former totalitarian dictatorships and Category:Totalitarian dictatorships. The closest CfD discussion I could find was Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 23#Category:Totalitarian dictators where the decision was to delete. But that was dictators not dictatorships. I thought I would run it by you before considering whether to nominate them at CfD, in case you knew how previous discussions on these rather subjective categories have gone. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I think that would need a full discussion. It's shift in focus from people to states, so not a re-creation. For future reference, User:Good Olfactory/CFD and its twin page CFR may well be helpful as lists of precedents up to 2012.
@Timeshifter: as you (long ago) created and then blanked Category:Dictatorships, do you have any advice to add? – Fayenatic London 14:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I no longer edit Wikipedia categories, nor participate in CFDs on Wikipedia. Too frustrating, and I no longer think categories are as important as other things on Wikipedia. On the other hand categories on the Commons are much more important in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:FIA Formula E Championship team owners[edit]

Hi Fayenatic london. Would you be able to process the speedy renaming of Category:FIA Formula E Championship team owners to Category:Formula E team owners? The category was tagged as part of the Group of "Formula E" categories which you recently processed, but it looks as though the nominator forgot to add it to the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

DH85868993: this was in fact included in the nomination, and listed for processing, but for some reason the bot failed to process it. Moreover, the bot has currently stopped altogether. I have notified its owner, see User talk:Cyde. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I just spotted and fixed an error in the listing. The bot is going again, so it should process this one soon. – Fayenatic London 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A dedicated Wikipedian[edit]

Blanc de blanc grand Cru champagne

Congratulations on reaching such a milestone! 100,000 edits! Wow! That's impressive. Celebrate with a glass of champagne. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Corinne! Face-smile.svgFayenatic London 10:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, Fayenatic. Fantastic feat! Audit Guy (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you too! For all the behind-the-scenes work that I enjoy, I'm very aware that it would have little point if it weren't for editors like you looking after the actual content. – Fayenatic London

Ulaanbaatar organisations / organizations[edit]

Shouldn't that have been taken to CFD, at the very least CFD speedy? My understanding was unless WP:STRONGNAT applied categories should not be renamed on the basis of British/American spelling differences. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I was thinking of WP:A10 but that only applies to articles, not categories. (For reference: the disputed move is this, not this.) I very rarely do small housekeeping changes without posting a notice, where I am following up implementation of agreed CFDs, and delay strikes me as pointless bureaucracy, see WP:IAR; these were two examples.
Cleaning up after moving Category:Ulaanbaatar, I noticed that it had twin sub-cats for Org's with different spellings. As the parent Category:Organizations based in Mongolia uses z, and had another child with z, and the s-spelling was a recent duplication of the old z-spelling (with different spelling for the city name), it struck me as a case for IAR. However, as I have just noticed that there is another subcat with s-spelling, I will nominate it with the above for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the members: shouldn't this have been taken to CFD speedy? – Fayenatic London 22:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Biographies in non-person categories[edit]

Please see WP:ANI#WP:COP-related CfD closure review which is pretty similar to the effects of your closure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths – is there a possibility to put your closure "on hold" until that is decided, or review your closure in this related matter? tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you any suggestion what can be done next to get this sorted? I'm asking you while some time ago something similar happened (User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 9#Misunderstanding about a CfD outcome leads to hundreds of inappropriate edits) and I can't imagine how that could have gotten sorted without your determination to see the problem & address it.
Case is somewhat different now while the initial CfDs by Marcocapelle weren't "malformed" as such, only unpermissable per WP:COP, nobody in the chain of decisions thus far taking reponsibility for checking that out before implementing.
Do we need a RfC to check whether WP:COP is still valid on these points? What other options are there to invite a bot to undo or modify the contentious edits? Any advise would be most welcome! --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Francis Schonken, I don't have time to spend on this at the moment. I sympathise with the COP objection, and am willing to co-operate with reversal. However, I don't know any automated way to reverse the changes. The previous set of closures that I reversed were simple category renames, but these were merges to multiple targets. I think someone would have to manually reverse them from the contributions history of Armbrustbot.
Don't ask anyone to remove the bios from the year categories – this would make reversal even harder, as each bot edit could no longer simply be manually undone after it had been superseded. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Female saints[edit]

Dear Fayenatic london, I had pinged you at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_23#Category:Christian_female_saints_from_the_Old_Testament, not sure if you had noticed this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Category closure[edit]

Hope you had a nice break! Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_7#Category:Technology_and_inventions_by_region for further implementation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is more of a flying visit than a return... Anyway, thanks for the ping, I have implemented that one. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Brogan Dulle[edit]

Hi, Fayenatic london! I'd like to work on this content for use as a section of the article Social media (the case seems to have been an early use of an organized social media campaign for the purpose) and it would be nice if I didn't have to recreate all my sources -- would it be possible for you to undelete and userify it for me? valereee (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – see message on your user page. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Zara (given name)[edit]

Stop reverting the page back to the one with the fictional characters on it. I was the one who added those to begin with, and I want to undo that. — Sanadate

You have the right to blank your own user page, but not article talk pages. Please discuss it at Talk:Zara (given name). – Fayenatic London 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sanadate (talk · contribs) you have reverted Zara (given name) four times. I haven't reported that as a breach of WP:3RR as the first was a self-revert of your own edits in the previous month. I don't understand what your game is, and am not going trying to figure it out. However, since you added content which improved the article, it should stay. So far you have refused to discuss this on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Since you seemed to like an edit I did, but somebody else didn't, I invite you to the discussion debating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Star_Trek_materials#Article_title it's the last topics on the bottom. Regards.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Advent churches[edit]

What exactly is an "Advent church"? A dedication? If so, how is that defining? Is every church dedicated to St Peter to get a St Peter category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Thanks for following this up. The category creator has not edited since I posted a similar question at Category talk:Advent churches (I forgot that I had asked). I have just emailed him. If he does not reply then one of us may as well nominate it for deletion. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

realtors merged into real estate brokers -poor decision[edit]

Hi Fayenatic london,

Thanks for pinging me at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_19#Real_estate_brokers, unfortunately contributing there has been a waste of time, as the discussion which has been open since July 19 has now been closed in a hurry shortly after I tried explaining why this is a bad merge. Looks like categories are still the Wild west of Wikipedia, few there wants to listen to reason — I have obviously wasted my time (once again, sigh) trying to contribute positively to this "discussion" process.

The reason I say the merge is a mistake is because all real estate brokers are real estate agents, but not the other way around. I also expect user:RevelationDirect will have difficulty with this merge because he did mention …”Real estate broker" can have specific legal meaning in the US which BTW is also true in Canada. Agents are not permitted to work independently, they basically work as employees of brokers. Brokers are the ones who end being sued when real estate deals go to court.

Anyway, not much point in wasting any more breath, is there? There's lots of other areas at Wikipedia where my contributions are valued. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You could enquire of the closer, User:Good Olfactory, whether he overlooked the recent contributions there, or thought they were not going to change the overall consensus. IMHO the real gain is getting rid of "realtor" categories. I nominated national categories according to the predominant words used in the member biographies, hence "agents" for Canada. For the overall category tree to be renamed, the best place to start would be to propose renaming the main article from Real estate broker to Real estate agent. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)