This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Fayenatic london

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
25 November 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)


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)


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)
Good evening, good morning, I remember having seen a follow-up discussion on this issue, but can't remember where I've seen it. Do you know? I'm just curious to know if and how it was resolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: Yes, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#WP:COP-related_CfD_closure_review. I added a link to it at the above CFD, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_30#1st_to_6th_century_BC_deaths, to explain why the category pages have not been deleted (Category:Categories for discussion from May 2015 would normally be empty by now). It needs someone to start a review at WP:DRV; would you have a go? – Fayenatic London 12:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's now at DRV, separate from the Birth BC CfD which was not your closure, I saw I never really asked you whether you would be prepared to overturn your closure yourself? Normally this should have been asked before (as the first step foreseen in Wikipedia:Closure review). Wouldn't that be the simplest solution? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: re Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 3: Yes, I would have been willing to change the decision on closure, but implementing that change – reinstating the old category members – would require a lot of manual work. We can get a list of them from the bot's contributions, but I don't know of an automated way to proceed after that. So it's not as simple as overturning most other CFD decisions. Moreover, Good Ol’factory has now deleted the categories too. [3]Fayenatic London 11:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I thought I should ask. Nonetheless I think in all probability sooner or later (and under the current conditions rather later than sooner) this will have to go back to the situation ante, and the longer that decision is postponed (and it looks like there's ample opportunity to postpone for a variety of reasons), the more complicated and energyconsuming the task will be. I don't say you'll be the one doing all the work in the end, but think of the one(s) who may be ultimately executing the tasks... Whatever you can do to speed up the process would be appreciated, of course within the limits of what you can do without upsetting anyone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oop—was I not meant to delete those categories? They had been sitting empty for some time and I thought the process had been completed with no change to the result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

...After RfC listed at WP:BOTREQ#BC births and deaths categorizations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 14 October 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)


Since you seemed to like an edit I did, but somebody else didn't, I invite you to the discussion debating it. 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)
Ah, he has replied, referring to de:Kategorie:Kirchengebäude nach Name. Well, in English WP all we need is the disambiguation page, Church of the Advent; there are no other subcats of churches by name. – Fayenatic London 23:22, 31 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)


Hello, Fayenatic london - I've been reading the article on Docetism. I made a few minor edits. (I saw slanted single quotation marks, as well as non-slanted double ones, so I changed the slanted single ones to non-slated double ones. Hope that's all right.) But that's not the reason I've come to your talk page. The last sentence in the section Docetism#Christology and theological implications is:

  • Other possibilities are that he was merely opposed to Christians who lived Jewishly, or deny that docetism threatened the church, or that his critical remarks were directed at an Ebionite or Cerinthian possessionist Christology, where God descended and took possession of Jesus' body.

Three possibilities are given. The first one is that

  • he was merely opposed to Christians who lived Jewishly.

(I had never heard the word "Jewishly" before; I'll leave that to you to decide if it is correct or not.)

The second one seems incomplete:

  • [or] deny that docetism threatened the church.

The third one uses "that" again, making me think that "deny that docetism..." is a second verb phrase following "who":

  • lived Jewishly or
  • deny that docetism threatened the church)

If this last phrase is the second verb phrase following "who", shouldn't it be "denied"? The sentence is a little unclear, don't you think?

- Corinne (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, I agree with you in full. If kept, I suggest it should read
lived Jewishly, or denied that docetism threatened the church; or ...
The citation is to a thesis. The edit where it was inserted is odd.[4] I'll start a discussion on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael (archangel)[edit]

I'm reading the article Michael (archangel), and I've come across something I don't understand. It's the quote in Michael (archangel)#New Testament:

  • A reference to an "archangel" also appears in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16:

the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Do you think "the trump of God" is correct? Should it be perhaps "triumph" or "trumpet"? Corinne (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"The trump of God" is correct, as it's a quote from the KJV: 1 Thes 4:16. The phrase was memorably used as the last line of a hymn by Charles Wesley, However, I would prefer Wikipedia to quote a modern translation, e.g. NIV: 1 Thes 4:16 – "trumpet call". – Fayenatic London 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh...Thank you. I learned something new. Corinne (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
On another thing regarding Michael, you might like to read User talk:Cplakidas#Vila Franca do Campo. I had asked Florian Blaschke for his opinion, which he gave, but I still wonder if the meaning of the name Michael in Hebrew is a question. It just doesn't make sense to me that "Who is like God?" would be given to a man as his name. It makes more sense to me that "He who is like God" would be given to a man in honor of his qualities. I'd like to find an editor who could answer that for me. Perhaps it was not a question in Hebrew but somehow got turned into a question going from Hebrew to Latin, or Hebrew to Greek to Latin. Corinne (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but it really is a question. I replied more fully on that talk page. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clear explanation. (Now I know I can come to you with questions regarding Hebrew!) It shows how, besides the language, it helps to know the background. I see now that rather than being a name to honor a man, it is more of a rhetorical question to God. Thank you again. Corinne (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Please explain how no edit summary implies deviousness. DJ Autagirl (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Autagirl (talkcontribs)

I replied on your talk page. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

British Burma in 1866[edit]

We actually have articles on the two distinct countries of Burma in 1866. One is Lower Burma and the other is Upper Burma.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert: I replied at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 9#Category:1866 establishments in British Burma. Thanks for providing links here on my talk page; it would have been helpful if you had also included those links on the discussion page, so I have now done so there. – Fayenatic London 13:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Marine engineers and naval architects[edit]

Why do we need two separate categories? Gatoclass (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

While naval engineer may be a synonym for naval architect, at least in some countries esp. Category:French naval engineers, marine engineering is a different discipline unrelated to design. Hence the rejection of the merger proposal last year for Category:Marine engineers and naval architects, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_11#Category:Naval_architects. Splitting the category instead was unopposed for two weeks at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3#Category:Marine_engineers_and_naval_architects, so it was closed and implemented (now Category:Naval architects and Category:Marine engineers). I will leave a note on both talk pages. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

James (brother of Jesus)[edit]

I wonder if you would mind looking at this edit to James (brother of Jesus) [5] and, while you're there, the ones just before and after it. I believe the addition of the phrase beginning with the word "claims" introduces a grammatical error into the sentence. Corinne (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: I agree, please go ahead and change that.
I was confused by the "her sister"/"his sister" quotation from the so-called Gospel of Philip, but it does match the available sources. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, do you mean just fix the syntax of that one sentence, undo that one edit, or undo all that editor's edits? Corinne (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant to encourage you to fix the syntax of that sentence; of course, do also fix anything else that you may find incorrect or unclear. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Corinne (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can help sort this out: see Talk:James (brother of Jesus)#Clarification of the sister accompanying Jesus on his travels. Corinne (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Doctor Who critics for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Doctor Who critics 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 Doctor Who critics until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Stephenb (Talk) 08:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) Test pages[edit]

The pages in question are the history of {{afd2}} and friends (the name is a reference to WP:ElC which is now historical, but spawned the current deletion policy WP:AFDC), and were apparently originally copied over (not by me) using a cut-and-paste merge. AFAICT, what happened was that the templates were drafted first in my userspace, then as {{afd2 new}} and friends, and finally copy-pasted over in one action.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do here is. Perhaps the correct approach is to do a bunch of history merges into the AfD templates, but some of the intermediate steps are now deleted. When trying this, it's probably best to look at this revision of User talk:El_C to get an idea of what happened. Of course, {{afd2}} is a very important template, so it might be quite some disruption for a relatively trivial problem like this.

If your only objection is to the redlinked categories, I don't see much of a reason to keep the page's content around, just its history. I'll blank the pages if you like to take them out of the category (or, if you wish, you can blank them yourself; I won't mind). That's probably the easiest way to solve the problems. --ais523 20:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll do that. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

John Dominic Crossan[edit]

I was just reading the article on John Dominic Crossan, and I saw that it has numerous "citation needed" tags and improvement templates that date from 2011 and earlier. I wonder if you feel like working on it or whether it might be a candidate for Today's Article for Improvement. Corinne (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

William Ellery Channing[edit]

I'm reading the article on William Ellery Channing, and I've come across a sentence that doesn't sound quite right. It's toward the end of the lead of the article:

  • Here he espoused his principles and tenets of the developing philosophy and theology of "Unitarianism" resulted in the organization later in 1825 of the first Unitarian denomination in America (American Unitarian Association) and the later developments and mergers between Unitarians and Universalists resulting finally in the Unitarian Universalist Association of America in 1961.

I have to assume that "tenets" is the subject of the second clause. Do you think it would be enough simply to add a comma after "principles"? The sentence is a bit long, though, and has both "resulted" and "resulting", and has "later" twice. Any suggestions? Corinne (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

W. D. Davies[edit]

I've just read the article on W. D. Davies. I came across a sentence in which I see a bit of ambiguity. It's the last sentence in the short second paragraph in W. D. Davies#Work:

  • In The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), Davies sees a law which remains even under the covenant of grace and thus spans the canonical tensions between James and Paul.

It's the word "even" I'm wondering about. It could mean the adjective "even", as in "on an even keel", remain steady, or it could mean the adverb, as in a sentence like this: "it remains even when everything else is gone". Which meaning do you think was meant? Is it clear enough to you? Corinne (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Berry[edit]

I just read the article on Thomas Berry. I noticed that in the last paragraph of the article there are several external links. Should those be there? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Edward VI of England[edit]

I just started to read the article on Edward VI of England. I was looking at the infobox, and I was surprised to see that he was born in January 1547 and that his coronation was less than a month later in February 1547. Then I read the beginning of the lead, and it says he was born in 1537 and his coronation was in 1547 at the age of nine. I guess that's a typo in the infobox, but since I don't know about the history, I hesitate to change anything. Corinne (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks for your confidence in me, but I need to take a break from here to focus on other things. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Forget this. I just looked at the infobox again and I saw that he was born in 1537. I had seen his reign began in January 1547 and his coronation was in February 1547; I guess I saw the January date as his date of birth. Sorry about that. Corinne (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What happens next?[edit]

Following the close of the fashion designer categories as mergeback, what happens next? Does someone need to manually rollback all Muhib Mansour's category changes (which means the poor guy would get hundreds of notices of edits being undone) or will this be done automatically? Or will the categories be deleted and the entries in them automatically reverted? Just wondering. Mabalu (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I listed those 4 categories to be merged back by a bot. That will happen in due course. However, the new sub-categories will need to be separately nominated. Feel free to help with this, using {{cfm-speedy}}. When you list the nominations on the speedy page, give the relevant criterion as C2C, with a link back to the above full CFD discussion. Let me know if you'd like help with that. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already done that (with the link if not the criteria given above - I listed as housekeeping) before I saw your message above. Just realised I should have said "child category" rather than "parent category." I decided to untick the "notify creator" option so that Muhib wasn't blasted with a whole load of notifications, not sure if that was the right thing to do or not. Mabalu (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see that (i) the child categories did not need to be merged (as I wrongly assumed above), because Mubib had added them without removing other categories (in the half dozen cases I checked); and (ii) you have emptied the categories yourself, rather than nominate them for discussion anywhere. The latter is considered "out of process" and improper, as there should always be the opportunity for objections. However, I can't see any point in changing what you have done now, as the result is what it should be. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Noted for future reference - I had assumed that nominating the parents would include discussion on the child categories and some of the comments also included comments on those. However, earlier this year, I had someone exploit the rollback/undo tool to go below the radar with harassing me by ensuring I received lots of red notifications that edits I had made years ago had been "undone" so I was hesistant to inflict 50-odd notifications in a row, particularly on something that was a foregone conclusion. I don't recall nominating categories for discussion before, so wasn't as certain on the process here. Thanks. Mabalu (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Hope you enjoyed your break! :) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge Corporate University[edit]

Hi Fayenatic, Can I seek your review of this new article? It appears to be a corporate entity and not an accredited academic outfit. Thanks in advance for your help. Audit Guy (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded at Draft talk:Cambridge Corporate University. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout Trout Trout Trout Trout Trout Trout[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

for prodding The Three Doors. Please feel free to reciprocateFace-smile.svg Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Coolabahapple: Excellent work, thank you. I confess that I hadn't bothered looking for sources on that one, or even reading the linked pages, because the article just looked to me like a fanfic fan page, especially as no-one had responded to the other tags. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
no probs, I'm usually hanging around children's literature articles and like to improve any that catch my eye.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement with CfD[edit]

Category:Pope Francis albums There is a long and broad consensus on having album by artist categories as part of a huge scheme. There are reliable sources that this is an album by Pope Francis. There is even a parallel category for John Paul II. I can't disagree with this more--there is a mountain of consensus to keep all album by artist categories. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You evidently refer to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_1#Category:Pope_Francis_albums, and Abbà Pater in Category:Pope John Paul II albums. I see from [6] that that album also contained samples of speeches rather than tracks intentionally/knowingly recorded by the Pope, so that is an unconvincing precedent which should probably likewise be upmerged following the same rationale. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team![edit]

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic University of America[edit]

Sure - I'll see what I can do when I have a moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was working on them, but the past couple of days have been pretty rough, and I didn't have the energy to finish. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Any time. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Check it out[edit]

Check out what Cydebot is doing to the newly created categories you listed at WP:CFDW. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks – I had already left a note about this behaviour at user talk:Cyde. It's been doing that for months – for speedy renames, it either removes only one line from the template (leaving junk), or blanks the whole page. I'll be glad when user:Cyde has time to correct this. Meanwhile, it's best for us to check the new pages, as well as links to the old. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I may have missed some blank ones in the past. I certainly don't always remove the CFD junk from the ones that are not blanked; it only makes a visible difference (as a large gap at the top) if there are continuity templates or other visible content on the page. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I had noticed the ones with CFD junk for the past few weeks, but I hadn't seen the blanked ones before, so I too may have missed some of these as I haven't been checking every single new category. I generally haven't been removing the junk either—after the problem was resolved, I was going to see if there was some way we could send a worm out to search all categories for the junk left behind and delete it by bot. It might be worthwhile to email Cyde to get his attention about the issue. He's slow to respond to talk page stuff but pretty prompt when he sees any email. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he is, and I'm always grateful. I did and, as you can see at his talk page, he says he needs to port the code to the new framework. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be working now. I'm pretty sure I identified the issue. Let me know if this still isn't the case. --Cyde Weys 01:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Belgian history[edit]

You've closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_5#Category:1722_establishments_in_Belgium without consensus on the appropriate solution, and as a result a number of things now in Belgium (and to that extent "Belgian") are listed as "Austrian Netherlands" even though they were never in it. Both @Marcocapelle: and myself pointed out this issue in the CfD, but our comments and alternative suggestions have been bulldozered. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Andreas Philopater: I wouldn't worry too much about it. Meanwhile I've learned that all categorization effort on Wikipedia is temporary - i.e. it's good enough until someone finds a better solution. In this particular case, as soon as the next discussion gets consensus (to rename to Southern Netherlands), either one of us can (re)nominate all 16th-18th Belgian/Austrian NL categories for renaming to Southern NL. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Any Bishopric of Liege articles can be moved to the corresponding Holy Roman Empire date category. Tim! (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential blocked user sock[edit]

Hi. Apologies if this is inappropriate (and please tell me if it is), this is the first time I've come across something like this. I was doing a New Page Patrol, and noticed that an article I was going to CSD had been created by a blocked user (blocked after the article creation, so that wasn't my rationale for the nom, it simply doesn't assert any notability). That user was User:CPABC. I noticed that User:PBA2552 began editing the page I was nominating the same day (less than an hour) after you blocked CPABC. Not sure if I should have gone to SPI, or simply reported it to you, since you were the admin who blocked the article's creator. Regardless, thought I should let someone know. Thanks for any guidance. Onel5969 TT me 23:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks for notifying me. This was a "soft block", solely because of the inappropriate user name, as CPABC signifies on organisation, CPA British Columbia, rather than an individual. It is fine for such an editor to re-register using a non-promotional user name. The only thing we might usefully watch for is whether their edits indicate a possible conflict of interest, in which case we could point them to WP:COI and encourage them to edit accordingly. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ivan Pope.[edit]

I am trying to put back Ivan Pope ... can you help? LoopZilla (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, see User:LoopZilla/Ivan Pope. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. LoopZilla (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Submitted for review! LoopZilla (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for putting in the work on recategorizing the Years in Belgium tree. I wouldn't have wanted to do it myself. Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Why, thank you. It's pleasant when teamwork fits in with individual editors' inclinations and availability. I'll finish tidying the establishments category pages, but I've asked Marcocapelle to nominate the necessary years and decades. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[edit]

I'm asking you to review your decision to close the discussion on Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people and Category:Welsh-speaking people as a "delete" decision. If you look at the possible outcomes for a deletion debate as described in Wikipedia:Deletion process, you'll see that there was no consensus, not even a rough one, to delete in this case, and the proper decision would have been "no consensus". Although you seem to feel that the arguments in favour of deletion were somehow "stronger" than those against, you have not specified in what way you think this to be the case, and therefore this comes across as a subjective judgement. Deb (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this prompt. I have expanded the justification stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people, and commented at Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Pages listed on Categories for deletion. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Further to our previous discussion, I'd be interested to know what you think about this: Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Racist comments.Deb (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth and death categories[edit]

Hi, Fayenatic london,
I realize there has been a lot of discussion about these categories. Specifically, I read over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#BC births and deaths categories and older CFD discussions. However, my question is not about merging or separating categories. On a semi-regular basis, I go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories and tag empty categories that fit a CSD C1 tag. Specifically, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories states that C1 applies to categories:

  • "That have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, featured topics categories, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Empty category}} at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted."

Many of these birth and death categories are empty. I mean, there are dozens of these empty categories. But although they fit a C1 categorization, these tags are being removed based on CFD discussions but I don't see any discussions that say these empty categories should be kept even if they are empty, just whether they should be combined based on decade or separately by year.
I have asked if there is some basis for these categories to exist even though they are empty (and are likely to remain empty), that the Empty Category tag be applied (although this is normally just used for maintenance categories or WikiProject articles categories). But that tag is not being added. So, I imagine that the next editor who goes through the database listing of empty categories will just tag them again because there is no indication that these birth/death categories follow different rules than every other category.
I was going to bring this issue to CFD but seeing that these categories have already been repeatedly the subject of debate, I came to you because I saw you were active in reverting previous decisions on these categories. My argument is that empty categories should be deleted unless they are tagged empty categories and that these tags should have some basis in policy or a consensus discussion. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#BC_births_and_deaths_categorizations is currently the central place for discussing this.
It was me who recreated them. I tried recruiting help to repopulate them from projects including WP:BIO, but user:Francis Schonken objected to my doing anything or discussing it anywhere else pending responses to the bot request. However, nobody has offered to build a bot to revert the relevant edits. Let's pursue this on the bot request page as he has requested. – Fayenatic London 16:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Re. "I tried recruiting help to repopulate them from projects including WP:BIO, but user:Francis Schonken objected to my doing anything..." – I never objected to trying to get help wherever help can be found. I just said it would be best to keep the discussion in one place, and that that place is currently Wikipedia:Bot_requests#BC_births_and_deaths_categorizations – that is until all avenues to get bot assistance are exhausted. I saw some additional suggestions for automatization popping up there after I pleaded to keep the discussion in that place. Apart from the locus of the discussion, invite whoever you feel like to the single discussion on it.
@Liz: the discussion on whether or not we're going to have the categories that were populated before they were nuked is indeed over – that is unless you want to go closure review on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#RfC: BC births and deaths categorization scheme. The long and short of it: bot operators are very happy to mess up, less eager to revert after they messed up big time (that's one of the reasons I think the only right place to have the discussion is at the BOTREQ page, maybe some conscience kicks in after all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Francis Schonken: if that is aimed at user:Armbrust, I think it is very unfair. He is not responsible for the mess, as he did not take any decisions, but only helped to implement them.
If it is aimed at me for closing some of the CFDs with the outcome that is now deprecated, and leaving bot instructions on the CFD working page, I did so because there was a clear consensus, and nobody pointed out the breach of WP:COP until later. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, in response to my efforts to gain help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#BC_births_and_deaths_categories, you did write "reverting the bot is best handled by a bot", which I took as discouraging any further manual implementation by me or anyone else.
Anyway, I have made a suggestion at the bot request page which might help to reactivate this moribund request. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then. I'm reading through the lines of what seems to be a more complicated situation than I realized. So, a CFD decision was made to merge categories, and a bot did so, and then it was decided that this wasn't a good idea but the bot can't revert its actions?
So, the bottom line is that these categories shouldn't be empty, but they will remain so until some good-hearted editor goes through and manually adds the category to all of those bios because the bot is unable to. Is there any way we could solicit help from participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome? I assume most of the bios we have from that period of time have to do with ancient civilizations, mostly Greek. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. invitation posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#BC births and deaths categorizations.
  2. quite some Romans too in these categories, going further back in history, I suppose there will be rather Egyptians and so forth? Are there any other projects that might be interested? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I've added a temporary note to template:DeathyrBC, which you can currently see at e.g. Category:89 BC deaths but not at Category:49 BC deaths. Will that do the trick in terms of discouraging re-deletions? – Fayenatic London 12:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A very odd close[edit]

at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_30#Category:Four_species - unsurprizingly you have to be Jewish (per user pages etc) to think that "Sukkot" is "clearer" than "Jewish ritual". Not to the rest of us, it isn't. There were 3 supports for my suggestion, plus the 2 preferring "Sukkot". Why go for that? Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but I'm not sure what on my user page you might be referring to.
You actually proposed "Should be renamed to something like Category:Four species (Jewish ritual)". Although that partly corresponds to Category:Jewish ritual objects, IMHO it's not a good name because there is no Jewish ritual called Four Species. I went with the only suggested alternative for that reason and because it matches the other parent Category:Sukkot. "Four species (Jewish ritual of Sukkot)" would be OK and self-explanatory to more readers, but nobody suggested that. Anyway, I have expanded my explanation at the CFD page. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not pursuaded - there was clear support for something "clearer", and we have ended up with a disam term that will be unfamiliar to most Gentiles, who if they are aware of the feast at all, probably know of it as the "Feast of Tabernacles". Really you should have given your view as a comment, rather than imposing them in a close. The reasoning you have used is not expressed in the debate at all. I was talking about the two supporters of the title you chose, not you. Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't participate in the discussion, but I thought that the choice of "(Sukkot)" as the disambiguator was a good one, due to the existence of the parent Category:Sukkot and the article Sukkot. And, as mentioned, the four species are not actually Jewish rituals themselves. In discussions such as this, that are essentially clusterfs, where there is consensus to change but not quite on what to change it to, a little discretion and leeway given to the closer is appropriate, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy renaming[edit]

Okay thank you for letting me know, I have done what you suggested for me to do. ( (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC))

Comprehensive schools[edit]

Bleaney has continued to remove comprehensive school categories and many are now deleted, without involving cfd. See Category talk:Comprehensive schools in Oxfordshire which links to some relevant cfd discussions, one being one of yours. Perhaps you could ask Bleaney to desist, or use cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As there was no consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London, I'm not going to oppose the deletions, but he really should follow the CFD process. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It also involves much less work to follow process (if agreed at cfd). Presumably Bleaney thinks the case is too weak to convince at cfd. (Bleaney has created the Secondary schools tree and moved the comps into it. But apparently free/foundation/community/independent schools are not secondary schools. See Category:Schools in Sheffield. All rather bizarre.) Oculi (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think all of those can include primary schools. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)