User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 044

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

Revolvy

Just puzzled. I recently created a page called John Dulanty (diplomat) which is awaiting review and so, not yet up in mainspace. I was astonished a little while ago to see that a site called Revolvy has the article up and they say "taken from Wikipedia". I have just seen them described as a spam site, but I am dumbstruck that they could get a hold of it when it has not even gone up.Aineireland (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aineireland

As far as I can see, the article John Dulanty (diplomat) was created by you in article space, and has stayed there.

I see no sign of a Draft:John Dulanty (diplomat). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If I google it, it doesn't come up.Aineireland (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aineireland: It didn't show up for me on Google either.

But then I checked incoming links to the page, and there were none in article space. So John Dulanty (diplomat) was WP:ORPHANed, making it invisible to Google's robots.

I just created a redirect from John Whelan Dulanty, which created a few links (see Special:WhatLinksHere/John_Dulanty_(diplomat), and I will add some more. It should show up soon.

BTW, it's great to see you working on expanding coverage of Irish diplomats. It is a field where en.wp has had a lot of embarrassing holes for too long, and the current huge expansion in Irish diplomacy makes it a more important topic than ever. Congrats on your good work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, it worked. https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Dulanty+(diplomat) now shows your en.wp article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. At first, I was still puzzled as I had four links in it. But I see from the history that they were not in the original page creation , but were added in later edits. I guess that was the problem . Yes?Aineireland (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You are v welcome, @Aineireland

But that's not quite the prob.

Yes, the article needed to include more links.

However, the resaon it didn't show up in Google was different. The problem was that no other page include a link to John Dulanty (diplomat). When I fixed those other articles, John Dulanty (diplomat) was on Google within minutes.

When you create a new article, check that other relevant pages link to it, by using "what Links her" at the top of the toos section on the lefthnad column of the screen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian writer cats

Binod Bihari Verma is now in Category:Indian male novelists, Category:20th-century Indian novelists and Category:20th-century Indian male writers. Is this not overkill? Category:20th-century Indian male novelists could cover all of it if it existed. There seem to be people who spend all their time going round in circles with the categorisation stuff, racking up huge numbers of edits and causing my watchlist to light up because of the way they're targeting things, all whilst hiding more troublesome prior edits. Is there not some way to rationalise/limit the disruption as well as the categories themselves? Perhaps seeking consensus before creation of new categories, despite WP:BOLD, and throttling the number of changes per day? - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I agree almost entirely. The biggest such problem is these ppl-by-century categories, wdhich for most occupations are a crude and unhelpful form of categorisation. They massively increase the number of cats each article is in, and create vast sprawling categories. If they are going to be creat

The article in question was most recently categorised[1] by @Ser Amantio di Nicolao (SAdiN for short), with whom I have had several unfruitful discussions about his massive ppl-by-century categorisation exercises.

SAdiN's modus operandi is to pick low-hanging fruit: large sets of articles which he can recategorise en masse using AWB, and which he very rarely attempts to complete. The result is en.wp's highest edit count, trashing of watchlists, and horrendous category clutter on articles.

Even worse, SAdiN does all this stuff stealthily, by not using informative edit summaries. The edit linked above was one of a huge series (see contribs) all of which do exactly the same thing ([[:Category:20th-century Indian male writers]] → [[:Category:20th-century Indian male writers]]) but where the edit summary does not explain the change. It would take a few seconds for SAdiN to create a more informative edit summary to be used across the AWB run, but instead SAdiN creates many thousands of edits in which other editors can see the change only by viewing the diff. This may be because SAdiN lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to write proper edit summaries; or it may be because SAdiN doesn't care about working collaboratively; or it may be a conscious desire to work stealthily. I do not know which ... but I do know that it is utterly wrong for the most prolific recategoriser to work with so little transparency.

I have tried on several occasions to engage with SAdiN in various forums, but the response is always the same: charmingly polite passive aggression, in which very basic policies and guidelines are ignored or acknowledged without action. There is no way that these dits are all being done by mnaually clicking "save" on AWB for each edit; some sort of autoclicker or hacked AWB is in use. So SAdiN is effectively running a prolific unauthorised bot, with neither prior consensus nor meaningful engagement with concerns. I have never seen SAdiN open an RFC before any of these rampages, nor even start a discussion at a relevant project page. Instead he does sytematic WP:FORUMSHOPping, by seeking support in clusters where his fans are, such as WT:WOMRED and making no attempt at wider notification.

However, attempts to challenge this behaviour are met with cries of "but we like him" from SAdiN's followers. I could point you to many occasions when I have tried (e.g. WP:CFD/2018 January 14 or User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao/Archive_33#Lots_of_superfluous_cat-a-lots.

I have spent long enough banging my head against that brick wall that I have given up trying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, I see what you mean about Ser Amantio di Nicolao being passive-aggressive in those discussions. I've experienced it myself and have considerable doubts about his worth to the project with all his effectively automated edits. I will have a think and perhaps take on the mantle of bringing some sort of sense to what he does. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sitush. If you do decide to try to do something about this, please lemme know. I'd be happy to help, if you think it is useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about CfD bot

Is the CfD bot capable of ignoring nominated categories when they are redlinked, or will it instantly stop and give an error? I'm asking because I have this prepared in my sandbox, which is very easy to generate by Excel. But it would require quite a different approach if redlinked nominated categories are really not permitted. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marcocapelle

I think it will remove redlinks, but I am honestly not sure.

Just to clarify, the case you are looking at is where one or more pages are in "Category:ZXCVBNM1234", but the page Category:ZXCVBNM1234" does not currently exist?

If that is the case, I can easily do a test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed the question. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: OK. I will test this by closing a CFD where there is consensus to delete, and see what happens if I delete the category page before putting the bots to work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

​I have used Cydebot, multiple times, to remove redlinked categories after deleting a category page. I have likewise pasted lists into WP:CFDW for merging or renaming, and Cydebot still works if some are redlinked (whether already deleted or just mis-typed). Conclusion: Red links will not break or stop the bot. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Many thanks. That's v helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election

Hi. I hope you are doing well.
Honestly speaking, I had totally forgotten about that discussion.
I came to your talkpage to apologise, and to thank you. As I explained in that discussion, I shouldnt have closed the previous discussion the way I did. I apologise for that. I also feel bad because of that close, you (and others) had/have to invest a lot of time. I feel bad about it. I am sorry for it too. Now I feel stupid for close as well. But thankfully, now I feel more experienced in RM venue, and I hope that will lead to less mistakes in future. I hope for almost no mistakes though. I also wanted to thank you to bring it up so politely, and in civil manner. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: many thanks for coming here, and for being so nice about this.

Please don't beat yourself too much about this. We all have to start somewhere, and learn as we go ... on a wiki, errors can be undone.

As to my time ... well if I had been around during the Feb 2018 move discussion, I'd still have needed to present the arguments then. It's not your fault that an inadequate nomination was made.

The crucial point to learn for the future is that in weighing a consensus you should attach little weight to arguments which are not founded in policy. In your comment at the new RM, you wrote the consensus was to move the article ... which suggests that you are still weighing consensus by counting heads. But WP:NOTVOTE etc.

The closer's job is also not to be a judge and choose what they think is the best argument. It's more subtle than that.

What the closer needs to do is to weigh arguments by a combination of how well they are founded in policy, and how many editors support each argument. In this case there was only one policy-based argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories

I don't really understand you're rationale for repeatedly removing Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies from the Anne Clwyd. article. This is the parent category of the non-diffusing Category:Female members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies. We don't elect FMP's to parliament, we elect MPs. Sionk (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sionk: As I noted in my last revert, Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Welsh constituencies is non-diffusing only by gender. You can see this for yourself by reading the category page.

However, it does diffuse by party, and she is already in Category:Welsh Labour Party MPs. So per WP:SUBCAT she shouldn't be in that cat's parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I thought 'Category:Welsh Labour MPs' was for Labour MPs who are Welsh, but it looks like I'm mistaken :) Sionk (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect use of navbox; WP:LAYOUTNAV

Dear Brown Haired Girl

Once again, I need some help with BeenAroundAwhile. If you don’t remember him…he was advised against - and ultimately suspended for - repeatedly inserting phrases such as “low income” into lead paragraphs of Los Angeles neighborhood articles. [2] [3] [4]

Now he is inserting navboxes into the middle of Los Angeles neighborhood articles. He has been advised of his mis-use of these navboxes on multiple occasions by both myself and user SMcCandlish.

Despite the removals – all with edit summaries and notes on talk pages - he continues to re-insert them.

Sylmar, Los Angeles: Navbox was removed on June 30; BeenAround restored it on July 3 [5]

South Park, Los Angeles: Navbox was removed on July 6; BeenAroundAwhile restored it on Aug 18 [6]

Central-Alameda, Los Angeles: Navbox was removed on July 24; BeenAround restored it on October 18 [7]

His latest comment is on the talk page of Central-Alameda, Los Angeles: "I've restored the geographical navbox under the principle Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time [8] ”

Explanations of usage were left on talk pages. All edit summaries are clear and concise. But how do you deal with someone who says "You can't follow all the rules, all the time"

Please advise.

Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Phatblackmama: There is a user conduct issue here only if a consensus has been established that this type of usage is inappropriate.

If that has happened, then please link to the discussion. And link directly to it. Please learn how to link directly to the relevant section, without using "http" etc: Help:Section#Section_linking may help. Unless you can clearly present evidence of the problem, it is very hard to assist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks. I will get back to you. Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

WP Notifications

Hello BHG. Not sure if you missed my most recent response to you at the WP:NC-GAL talk page. Cheers, Number 57 13:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Sorry. Will go have a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This was my comment in case you're having problems spotting it. Cheers, Number 57 14:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57:. Thanks. And here's my reply[9].

And thanks again for being so civil and solution-focused about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've notified all national WPs, all US state WPs, the WPs of the UK's constituent countries and WP:CENT. Cheers, Number 57 15:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please undo a move

Please undo this edit to John Mason (lived 72 years). I don't know how. I do not remember anything about it on its old talk page.

1. (diff | hist) . . John Mason (lived 72 years)‎; 01:41 . . (0)‎ . . ‎YunZhiWong Chinasong (talk | contribs)‎ (Cause that is true. 1636 to 1638. Not 1637. That is the middle of the night, I mean, war.)
2. (Move log); 01:37 . . YunZhiWong Chinasong (talk | contribs) moved page John Mason (c. 1600–1672) to John Mason (lived 72 years) ‎(the circa symbol looks wierd.)

WikiParker (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@WikiParker: I moved it to John Mason (Pequot War), which seems a more plausible search term, and fits better with WP:NCPDAB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Excellent. Thank you, both for the move and the rename. WikiParker (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You have been

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.∯WBG^converse 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. ∯WBG^converse 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)

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

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 (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1788–89

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

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

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)

Macrolanguage redirect

Moved to Template talk:Lang § Macrolanguage categories

 – – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

CFD

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)

A cupcake for you!

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)

Barnstar of Swaziland Eswatini

	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)

Here is another one for you

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)

Women in Dail Eireann

Hello! I was using your wikipedia page on Irish women in Dail Eireann and in particular the last table on the number of female TDs for an academic research paper. However, I cannot find your source that you used for the table! Would you be able to direct me in that direction?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.6.178 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the page List of women in Dáil Éireann? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear brownhaired one :)

This is strange to me, and perhaps to you. I see you are the last editor to the page about Ebba Lodden and, to my surprise, the English site is far more informative than the Norwegian entry. Ebba is my grandmother, on my father's side, and I'm still missing insight about that side of my family. If you should happen to know some sources, I would appreciate a lead or two.

Best wishes, Ragnhild — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.42.156 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ragnhild

How wonderful to have such an accomplished grandmother!

However, I am sorry to say that I cannot help. My only edit[10] to Ebba Lodden was to categorise the article, and I have no info the sources used.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Template Flagicon

I think your recent edit to Template:Flagicon may have broke something. There is now an apostrophe after every flag. Ex: –BLAIXX 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Blaixx

I have fixed[11] it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

change to flagicon template

Hi BHG,

Noticed your last change to Template:Flagicon. Not sure exactly what it's supposed to do, but I did notice it adds an apostrophe (`) after every implementation of the template. Like so:
I assume that wasn't your intention?

Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @SuperJew

I have fixed[12] it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 😊

Wait, what?? How come Walter Görlitz gets the credit? 😜

--SuperJew (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: 'cos :Walter Görlitz's post[13] at Template talk:Flagicon was the first such message I saw. Sorry to everyone else who got left out; I only saw the two other warnings after acting on Walter Görlitz's note. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Haha I was joking. Thanks again for fixing it so quick :) --SuperJew (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I thought you were probably joking, but I didn't want to presume

Thanks to everyone who pointed it out. I am annoyed with myself for not spotting it when I sandboxed the change,[14] and ran it on the testcases[15].

That tempate has 500k transclusions, so I wanted to get it right first time. But I guess my eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Igloo

I really do not understand why you keep removing what I put up about Grand Shelters and their igloo tool. Honestly, the information on igloos is incomplete without including the use of modern day tools to build igloos. Their research and engineering is professional and has been written about by others, including the writer of "The Mountaineering Handbook", their product was also featured on national TV several years back (Today). In regards to "plugging their product", it is almost impossible to talk about the product without plugging the name of the product, sort of defeats the purpose of even mentioning it if people cannot identify what it is. So, while mentioning the product sort of plugs the product, that is sort of like saying the page on Soft Drinks is plugging Pepsi or Coke. Of course it is, but it is to include the fact that Coke and Pepsi are part of soft drink history, which is the point of Wiki I thought.

In closing, I think it is poor judgement to consider this only promotional with no merit in relation to igloos. This tool is the evolution of igloo building so, it is actually fundamental to igloo history. This company has many people ask us why they are not a part of igloo history as they have sold thousands of igloo building tools worldwide. They have been cited in published books and as mentioned been highlighted on national TV.

This feels unilaterally against including facts that are essential information and that actually help promote future modern igloo use by Scouts, families, backpackers and survivalists.

https://www.amazon.com/Mountaineering-Handbook-Modern-Tools-Techniques/dp/0071430105 You can find images on the website regarding the Today show igloos built in Times Square. https://grandshelters.com

In additional, Ed Hueser (Igloo Ed as he is known worldwide) is a world renowned winter survival camper whom is the inventor and an engineer. People worldwide ask Ed for professional advice and he helps keep people alive every year by offering them sound advice on how to camp in the winter, whether in an igloo or in tents. He has put significant science into this tool, you only need to read the manual (which I linked to) to understand that.

Please feel free to contact me directly at stacy@searchorb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchorb (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Searchorb:

1. See WP:PROMO. Your message above makes it very clear that you have not read it.
2. See WP:COI. You seem not to have read that either.
3. Any contact will take place publicly, here on Wikipedia

Any coverage of igloo tools must fit the same criteria as other topics, including

• It must be neutral: see WP:NPOV
• It must be verifiable: see WP:V
• It must use reliable sources: see WP:RS

I get a strong impression that you are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, and are instead here to promote a product. If you continue to reinforce that impression, yo may be WP:BLOCKed from editing.

If you want to avoid a block, start by finding coverage of this tool in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. (That means newspapers, reputable magazines etc, and not Amazon or company pages). If and when you find that coverage, post it it Talk:Igloo, and let uninvolved editors assess its relevance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please retain text

Hi, if you consolidate CFD nominations into one, as here, can you at least retain all of the text of the nominator? The rationale for each nomination was not the same. I have fixed it now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Good Ol’factory: sorry, I guess I must have been speed-reading, and didn't spot the minors distinctions. They are all essentially the same issue, so they are better grouped ... but sorry I didn't retain the distinction. Thanks for sorting it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they should've been grouped. Thanks for doing that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Election article moves.

Hi. In light of the outcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format, I would like to resume that task. Let me know if you have any objections to that. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @BD2412, and thanks for the headsup.

The RFC has closed, and the decision is clear. Not what I wanted, but a consensus is a consensus, and that's what we work with.

So the renaming will proceed.

Last time around you did a large number of manual renamings, which I reverted pending the RFC outcome. Obviously they should now be renamed ... but I seem to recall that you had a non-zero error rate last time. Unsurprising with such a big task, so please please please please don't take that observation as any sort of reproach, but ...

I usually find that for big repetitive task, a tool does a more accurate job than a human. So ... this is just a suggestion, but wouldn't it be better to leave those to the bot, which has now been approved[16]??

Humans will be needed to fix navboxes and sort keys; preferably well-skilled humans like your good self. So I'd personally prefer to see your expert attention focused on that ... but we're all volunteers, so obviously you focus on whatever you like

Thanks again for the note. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. My thinking is that doing a set of tool-assisted manual moves will shake out any peculiarities that a bot might not be equipped to deal with. However, that can just as easily be handled on the back end, so I will wait and see how the bot effort shakes out. There is no deadline. bd2412 T 15:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My experience with big AWB runs using custom modules is that there is an initial debugging phase, then a watching phase as the beast is is unleashed .... and somewhere between 5% and 15% of the way into the run, just as I am getting confident, an exception is encountered which is a) going to recur, and b) requires some major new logic. But hopefully this bot is the creation of a better programmer than me! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Size of postnominals

Nowhere does it state that 100% size postnominals are only for infoboxes (this is not what WP:POSTNOM says; it merely says that 100% should be used in infoboxes, not that it shouldn't be used anywhere else). In the real world postnominals are almost always the same size as other text. Please stop "enforcing" a rule on Wikipedia that does not exist. The only reason the template uses small text is that the creator preferred small text and has steadfastly resisted any attempts to change it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: If you think that the default size should be different from what is, then you know what to do -- open an RFC, and get a consensus to change it. But whatever the outcome of the RFC, it is pointless to have swathes of articles use a setting which overrides the default. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A default does not equate to a rule. The facility to change the size is there; there is no reason it shouldn't be used. It is extremely pointless to use a size that the real world doesn't use. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect real life, is it not? Not make up its own rules. When do we ever use a different size text within our articles apart from here? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing so is merely adopting the preference of a single editor and overriding both common sense and normal practice both outside and within Wikipedia. Until use of this template became widespread, all postnoms on Wikipedia were standard size. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: -- the use of 100% is mostly the work of a single editor, viz you. You want the default to be 100% -- fine, so open an RFC to change it. In other words, seek a WP:CONSENSUS and stop trying to unilaterally streamroller your war way past a the default. If the template's default is changed as you want, then all the articles will change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not true at all. Used by many editors. Most others clearly know nothing about the real-world use of post-nominals and are just blindly applying the template. And stop trying to suggest that a default is a rule. Both the default and 100% are merely preferences. The difference is that my preference is demonstrably the norm in the non-Wikipedia world and also the norm for absolutely everything else in Wikipedia articles. I'd really like to know why you think the smallcaps are better. I can't for the life of me understand it. They're jarring in the middle of a full-size text article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: This is really not at all complicated. You think the default is wrong ... seek to try build a WP:CONSENSUS to change it. You are clear about what your preference is, but you should know that on en.wp, decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, not by your personal view alone.

So long as the articles use the default setting, they will all be changed if the default is changed. But you should know that I get a steady trickle of thanks notifications whenever I remove the hardcoded sizes which you apply ... and you are the only editor who has ever objected to my removal of them.

But wait a mo ... I was about to post this, then just checked the archive of Template talk:Post-nominals, and what did I find? Template_talk:Post-nominals/Archive_1#RfC:_Size_of_post-nominals_in_this_template

It's an RFC, opened by you, proposing 100% ... and which closed as no consensus. So what you have been trying to do is to impose by force majeure what you didn't persuade others to adopt.

Back off fast, Necro. You are behaving outrageously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was no consensus to change something that had already been unilaterally imposed (since before it was created we were all happily using 100% text for postnoms). Hardly conclusive. I'm using a facility on a template which is permitted by the template and is not going against guidelines. I fail to see what is wrong with that or how I am "behaving outrageously". As I said, a default is not a rule. Nowhere did that RfC mandate eliminating the use of 100% postnoms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: You're steamrollering through something for you sought consensus and didn't get.

Twice I suggested an RFC, and twice you replied without even having the integrity to note that you had already proposed that at RFC, and that there wasn't consensus.

You blatantly lied when you wrote above When do we ever use a different size text within our articles apart from here? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Doing so is merely adopting the preference of a single editor ... because you know well that your position was opposed by about half the participants in that RFC, and that it wasn't just the template's creator who opposed you.

I don't want to waste my time with liars. So back off, and behave yourself. And don't come back to my talk page util you are able to behave with honesty and truthfulness. I have no patience with liars, and today you are a shameless liar.

Don't forget that as an admin, you are like me bound by WP:ADMINCOND. Blatant lies are not compatible with adminship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate being called a liar. And I have no patience with liars either. So thank you for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: It's very simple. If you hadn't lied to me then I wouldn't have called you a liar.

If you find some part of that unacceptable, you know where WP:ANI is: feel free to make a complaint about me. I will only need a few diffs in response.

Now ... get lost until you clean up your act. Even a liar like you shouldn't have to be asked twice to stay off another editor's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi BrownHairedGirl, I came to say something along the lines of Necrothesp (without the argy-bargy). "100% size is required only for infoboxes; in the lede, just use the default" is not the case. The template was created back in the day to be used when someone had so many post-noms that they were taking up lots of space and therefore being small was a good compromise to deleting them. In the case of James Flint (RAF officer), you have removed the 100% but left the commas: as per the examples given at WP:POSTNOM and on the template page, when reverting to the default size the commas are removed. 100% + commas, 100% without commas, and 85%/default without commas are all valid options. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across the same issue, and suggested it needed discussion as well, at User talk:Necrothesp#Gillian Anderson's OBE and smallcaps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Size of post-nominals —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to @Gaia Octavia Agrippa and @AlanM1 for posting here. I am delighted to see that an RFC has been opened, and I have added my contribution there. Per WP:MULTI, substantive discussion should continue at the RFC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Size of post-nominals.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Authentic Information about "Zero Liquid Discharge"

Hi,

I'd like to draw your attention to your yesterday's edit on Zero Liquid Discharge. The ZLD Process Treatment Stages I added is 100% authentic. Please help me to add that details. You removed it and got the article back to its previous versions but the one I updated was with genuine information which could really help people/Students looking for Zero Liquid Discharge information.

Kindly help me how i can post it back to my version. Since you are way more experienced wikipedian, I look forward your help. Thanks!!!

--Iwriter16 (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iwriter16 the short answer if that you cannot post it back to your version, because then someone will do what I dis: remove your contribution as promotional. Promotional content is not acceptable.

The long answer is that if you do want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to learn more about its policies and procedures. I have left a message on your talk page with links to some core guidance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Some clean-up I noticed you were endeavoring

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I noticed some of your efforts to clean-up Special:WantedCategories, particularly regarding Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user page. I am a member of Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page and wondered if the two could be merged? Since some are posted on user pages and some on user talk pages, perhaps the two could be merged into something like Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on pages in their user space. What do you think? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@John Cline: sorry for a slow reply.

Thanks for the thought. Yes, the fewer variants the better, because it reduces the number of entries in Special:WantedCategories.

I am pleased to have been able to reduce the number of variants from 4 to 2, thanks to the helpfulness of the editors involved. It would be nice to reduce that to one, but I am conscious that many of the editors who place themselves in these categories have very strong feelings on the subject, and am wary of I opening up old wounds. (It all got quite heated in early 2017).

If you were able to persuade all 32 editors to do this, that it'd be great, but there'd be no improvement unless all of them agreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Category redirects

Hello, BHG. It looks like an AWB run a couple of weeks ago created some invalid category redirects, due to failing to distinguish between hyphens that should be en-dashes and hyphens that should actually be hyphens. :-) See Category:Austria-Hungary-Mexico relations for one example. You might want to re-do these so that they point to valid targets. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Found one more category redirect issue. In this edit, you inserted a template that automatically generates a category link to Category:1906 Summer Olympics, but that is a redirect to Category:1906 Intercalated Games. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for both of those @Russ.

The Intercalated Games shouldn't have used that template, so I reverted it.

And the category redirects from hyphens to endashes: there are only two countries in the set which have a dash in their titles: Guinea-Bissau and Austria-Hungary.

I kept the code in my AWB module simple, so rather than have it handle those cases directly, I had it link the target in the edit summary so that I could spot any redlinks. Unfortunately, I forgot to go back and check for those redlinks. Facepalm

Done now, in these 19 edits[17]. Hope that has got them all.

Thanks again for being so-eagle-eyed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

removing the red category from my talk page

Apologies. I forgot that red-linked categories falls into a cleanup issue. I had added Category:Wikipedians with a red-linked category on their user talk page because logically, anyone that has red-linked categories on their user talk page (plural) has to have more than one, so I added one to be correct. Maybe I missed the joke in that. I'm fine with the removal as I didn't mean to cause heartburn for you. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: sorry for the slow reply. And many thanks for being so helpful about this.

I read red-linked categories on their user talk page as being like a WP:SETCAT, where the plural form is used even when the current membership is one item. Now that red-linked usercats have been whittled down to one per page, the plural form probably is less appropriate. However, it originated back in the day when there were zillions of such redlinked cats (and Special:WantedCategories has a backlog of ~30,000 category titles). The plural form made sense when many editors had several of them.

Mine were Category:Wikipedians who do not feel the need to use the category namespace to convey their feelings of pleasure, annoyance or boredom about the state of the world or about Wikipedia's processes, and who wonder if anyone pays any attention to such things anyway and Category:Carnivorous, one-eyed, troglodyte celtic wikipedians born before JFK was shot, who reject polyandry on the grounds that one is way more than enough, and who cannot recall having been anywhere near the Texas book depository. Both removed[18] in Jan 2017.

Makes less sense now that nobody has more than one ... but some editors have v strong feelings about this, so it would take a lot of diplomacy to change it, to little benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	A barnstar to show my appreciation for your hard work with categories! Timmyshin (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Timmyshin. That's v kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

List of casinos in Massachusetts

We do have a precedence of listing casinos by state, also this is a sources list so it is best to AfD if you disagree. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Valoem: I spotted this page because it was in a non-existent category. When I checked the history, I saw:

1. [19] 05:10, 30 October 2016‎ User:Toohool redirected it to Gambling in Massachusetts
2. [20] 03:15, 1 December 2018‎ User:Valoem posted on User talk:Graeme Bartlett asking for the page to be userfied
3. [21] 05:40, 1 December 2018‎ User:Graeme Bartlett moved page List of casinos in Massachusetts to User:Valoem/List of casinos in Massachusetts
4. [22] 05:40, 1 December 2018‎ User:Graeme Bartlett replied on his talk, noting that it was userfied
5. [23] 11:38, 1 December 2018 User:Valoem moved page User:Valoem/List of casinos in Massachusetts to List of casinos in Massachusetts: moved to main space article
6. [24]11:38, 1 December 2018 User:Valoem restored the content of List of casinos in Massachusetts

So what's going on here, @Valoem?

Why did you ask admin @Graeme Bartlett to userfy a page which you then moved back to its original location in your next edit after it was userfied ?

That seems to me very odd indeed. So when I saw the non-existent category and spotted this history, I reverted the age to its status before you began this strange exercise.

Please explain this weird sequence of events. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would expect improvement to the page before moving back to article space. Otherwise the original AFD still applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: I don't see an AFD, tho pls correct me if I missed it. I just don't see the point of @Valoem asking you to userfy, and then Valoem's next action being to promptly revert the userfication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Actually deleted due to G5, so the bit about AD is misleading for this one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett: thanks for clarifying. But @Valoem's actions still seem odd, so I hope they willexplain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing odd about my actions. I am not an admin so I cannot see the condition of the article which was deleted. The article was deleted because the creator "was banned" not because of notability. There was no AfD so a DRV is not required. After admin Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) userfied the article I saw it was main space ready therefore it was immediately restored. As I mentioned in the comments we have a precedence of listing casinos by state. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Valoem: Ah, OK. That makes sense now.

But it would have helped a lot if you had used an edit summary explaining that. The summary which you did use[25] — moved to main space article — made the round trip to your userspace look v odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• No problem, but I actually did explain in this edit summary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Valoem: that did not explain the trip to userspace and back again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I asked it to be userfied in the case it was not ready for mainspacing. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Valoem: I get that. But that was not in any of the edit summaries. Look, it takes only a few seconds to write a terse edit summary which explains an action, but a lot longer to figure out why something was done if the edit summary doesn't explain it. This whole thread would have been avoided if you had written a few more words, along the lines of "G5-deleted cos crate by banned user; restoring after userfication and checks". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry I was doing my own thing at the time I didn't realize it would lead to such complications. I'll leave a more thorough comment next time. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. And happy editing! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians whose tenure has been taken away has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians whose tenure has been taken away, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:William Radde

Thank you for correcting my category error. I'm bumbling around trying to create this draft. Can you please tell me if you know why your edit to this draft did not show on my watchlist? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:William_Radde&diff=871505675&oldid=871431710

Outlier59 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Outlier59

I can't see your watchlist, so I can only guess. But I presume it must be because you were not watching Draft:William Radde. It currentlly lists as having no watchers.

See Help:Watchlist#Controlling_which_pages_are_watched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have the draft on my watchlist. I saw your edit on the draft history, not my watchlist. Outlier59 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Outlier59: I have no idea why that would happen. If you want answers, the best place to ask is WP:VPT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Way too techy for me. Sorry. I'll do what I can with this draft and leave it to you folks to keep or erase it. Outlier59 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Outlier59: As you wish. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What does luck have to do with it? Don't you have a process for evaluating draft articles? Outlier59 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Outlier59: I mean good luck in finding sources, good luck in getting into a writing rhythm to allow you to build the article, good luck in continuing to have the life and health and liberty to write.

Yes, there is a review process for evaluating drafts. See e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation ... some of the gory details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarity and patience with bumbling me — and for the nifty welcome note on my talk page! I wish you also good luck — and pax vobiscum Outlier59 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Dthomsen8/sandbox/JohnTempletonSmith

Thank you for calling my attention to User:Dthomsen8/sandbox/JohnTempletonSmith. The proper changes needed were to blank out out the draft article and remove the name from the sandbox, since Jojn Templeton Smith was an active article. I did the fix.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, @Dthomsen8. Glad to have helped.

I think I did about 1000 such edits to userpages, and expected a few complaints from editors who weren't aware of WP:USERNOCAT ... but I got no complaints. Instead I not dozens of thanks notifications, and now this nice msg from you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up on your Category Assistance

I first want to thank you for your assistance on my sandbox article. To be upfront, I am new to the Wiki world and I am honestly finding myself really enjoying the process of fact building and monitoring. That said, I have to admit my newbieness. I see a history entry from you of "convert categories to links while still a draft, per WP:USERNOCAT". I read the link you gave which was very helpful but in my quest to learn could you just verify that the gist of the edit is because DRAFT articles should not try and link to categories? I assume then that when I submit an article for review I would remove the colons added? Thank you in advance for any insight.

JASDrummer (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-factual editing Warning

Any more incorrect, SJW agenda editings contrary to current demographically proven trends and you will be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.112.151 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm, thank you for that friendly message.

Please explain exactly where and how you believe that I have been engaged in SJW agenda editings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Supercentenarian categories

I just wanted to let you know I reevaluated all of my votes and changed them to Merge to both parents, like we discussed here. Going through and changing all my votes felt like I was back in school and being made to do lines, which I found humorous. Ah the memories... I'm really glad we were able to come to agreement on this issue, and I appreciate the education on how to best deal with defective categories. As I said, they are not my thing. I also understand how things got a bit heated and why you questioned my sincerity. My previous position was a bit illogical and personal opinion shaped, and the topic of supercentenarians has had a very long history of editors of bad faith pulling all kinds of stunts. You were right to be suspicious, but I'm glad things ended amicably. All the best! Newshunter12 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Newshunter12. Glad it all ended well. Agreement is good, but the main thing is that we got to understand each others positions a bit beter

I have preparing a long message on your talk page, which I hope you will like. It should have been done by now, but I got sidetracked into an AFD, where my conclusion was v difft from what I expected[26]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Draftnocat revision at Elizabethan Religious Settlement

Hello, I'm not sure I understand the rationale given for this edit at at Elizabethan Religious Settlement: convert categories to links while still a draft, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT/WP:USERNOCAT as the article was not and is not a draft. (Hopefully, AWB isn't going sideways and doing the wrong thing.) In any case, a subsequent rollback to an earlier version made for reasons having nothing to do with your contribution has wiped out your change. If your edit was correct, it will need to be reinstated. If it was in error, nothing needs to be done. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot

Thanks for your message, and for being so nice about that glitch. Yes, that edit was indeed an error, so I have been trying to figure out why it happened.

I know that in the early phases of that WP:AWB run I had some glitches where AWB was following redirects from drafts which had been moved in to mainspace, until I belatedly turned off the "follow redirects" setting. However, this does not seem to have been one of that set, because there are currently no draft/user pages redirecting there. Maybe there was a redirect which has now been removed?

I have done some checking of my contribs list and see that the edit in question was at the start of a long AWB run, presumably at point where I was still testing the settings. I am a bit worried to find that I can't find quite why that page ended up on AWB's work list, but it looks like it was probably from an accidental save in an early phase of listmaking when I was testing various techniques, and tried unsuccessfully working off the list of polluted categories.

I have next the next 2,000 edits of that AWB run, and find only three other false positives[27][28][29], all of which were promptly corrected by other editors. So I think that's the lot.

Thanks again for notifying me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Congress Poland

@Laurel Lodged: Discussion moved to Category talk:1900s_establishments in Congress Poland#Chronology_categories_for_Congress_Poland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Parameters passed to YearInCountryPortalBox

Hi, I note that since this edit the century has been passed to {{YearInCountryPortalBox}} from {{EstcatCountryDecade}} rather than the new name. Perhaps the new name was intentionally omitted, on the grounds that the /parse sub-template substitutes it. However, the century seems to be unused; if so, please can we delete |{{{3|}}} in the first line of EstcatCountryDecade? It confused me just now when I was making a tailored version. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: you are right. 3 is the century and should never be passed through. The values which should be passed through are 4 (contemporaneous name) and 6 (current name), in that order of preference.

So I have done the following edits:

• [30] to Template:EstcatCountryDecade
• [31] to Template:DisestcatCountryDecade

Does that look OK to you? and can you identify any testcases?

I am curious about the variant which you are working on. What's it for? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The cases that I have checked look right. I haven't checked how your template avoids duplicate portals, but it works!

I have set up several specific templates like those in Category:20th-century establishments templates by country to span changes in country names. Several months ago there were comments in a CFD that these were more useful than an older alternative approach, namely to show only the periods when one specific name was used.

The disadvantages of using them are (1) future maintenance of formatting, (2) the scope to set up further such templates is pretty large. – Fayenatic London 22:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks for checking. Glad it looks OK.

I think that a more generic way of handling name changes is needed, and it's on my to-do list. My thought is to do it with |oldname=OldFoo |namechangeyear=YYYY

My first priority is work on all these est/disest by year/decade/century templates to remove the need for year parameters, and even worse the |m=1|c=9|d|5|y=3-style abominations, which are just an error-trap. That's why I have deployed {{YearParamUsageCheck}}, to check that it will be safe to do so.

In the meantime, when creating by-year or by-decade cats using old-style templates which will eat a full year or decade (rather than chopping it up), I just use {{Title year}} or {{Title decade}} in place of entering the specific year. It reduces error rates, and if I copy an existing cat as the basis for making a new one, the year needs to changing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds very good. A couple of thoughts:

• Additional parameters e.g. |oldname2=NextFoo |namechangeyear2=YYYY etc would be needed in some cases.
• Sometimes when the name changes mid-decade, there are currently decade categories for both names, but sometimes just one: usually the later name, but some cases use the old name – either because the change occurred late in the decade, or the only populated categories in that decade are before the change.

Incidentally... Why do categories use soft redirects anyway? If they used hard redirects, then simple templates would work more acceptably IMHO. (Not that I want to discourage your excellent work in this area.) – Fayenatic London 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Thanks. All good points, as ever!

• Yes, I had thought that maybe multiple name-changes should be accommodated, but wasn't sure if there were any actual examples. You have evidently found some, so it will need to be included. (BTW, if you found time to make a list of countries which have changed names, that'd be a great help as we unravel this)

• OK... Where do you suggest compiling this list? It would probably draw attention to any other quirks that need to be considered in the new design. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: Howabout either in your userspace, or a subpage of WP:WikiProject Years or WP:WikiProject Countries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I have started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Category hierarchy anomalies. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Where the name change occurs mid-decade, I reckon we should do as we do for years - just have a cat for the newer name. I wonder if the duplication is a consequence of editors struggling with the limitations of the current templates?

• For some years both categories exist, presumably where the (dis)establishments were clearly dated before and after the change – and I can understand the case for keeping both if it was a regime change.
• For some decades, the old name is currently used where there are no cases after the name change, e.g. Category:1930s disestablishments in Siam cf Category:1930s establishments in Thailand. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cats use soft redirects because hard redirects leave the page in the redirect category, but when the reader tries to visit the old category name, they get redirected to the new one. It's documented somewhere (I eventually found a note about it at WP:R#CATEGORY) ...

However, now that you raise it, I have rethought it. I reckon this is no longer needed, now that we have @R'n'B's brilliant @RussBot doing its wonderful work fixing pages which are categorised in redirected categories. It seems to me that RussBot could just as easily do this for hard redirects as for soft redirect, so that in theory we should just be able to modify {{Category redirect}} to create hard redirects and continue as before.

@R'n'B: what do you think of this idea? Does that sound viable? Or have I missed something? (If it's a runner, we'd obviously need to propose it at WT:CAT, possibly as an RFC, but I'd love to hear your initial thoughts)

In general, yes, the bot is just looking for {{Category redirect}}; it doesn't care whether that template is implemented as a hard redirect or a soft one. So this could work. The downside is that there are a small number of category redirects that can't be resolved by the bot and require manual intervention (usually because the category link is being generated by a template, although there are other cases, too). So the category links on these pages that can't be auto-fixed would be effectively broken until someone comes along and does the manual repair. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW, FL, have you spotted my new {{FindYDCportal}}? It simplifies adding a year/decade/century portal. Just add {{Portal|Topic|{{FindYDCportal|{{Title year}}}}}}, and it will find the most specific chrono portal available. Also works with a decade param, e.g. {{Portal|Topic|{{FindYDCportal|{{Title decade}}}}}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. I included that in {{EstcatContinentDecade}}. I assume that it's already incorporated in {{YearInCountryPortalBox}}.

Question: why does YearInCountryPortalBox not display Portal:Cameroon on Category:20th century in Cameroon etc? – Fayenatic London 12:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: because YearInCountryPortalBox expects a year as parameter, and in that case it doesn't get one. You have entered {{YearInCountryPortalBox|Cameroon|20th century}}, which is pointless: you know there is a 20th century portal and a Cameroon portal, so better to just enter {{Portal|Cameroon|20th century}}

Maybe you were doing it as test, to see if YearInCountryPortalBox could be used in meta-templates for centuries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good competence. I was thinking that it was designed for centuries too; I must have had something else in mind. My goal was to incorporate portals:History and Years by using a centralised template rather than having to code them by hand. – Fayenatic London 17:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Category talk:1900s establishments in Congress Poland. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Watford FC article

Good morning,

Watford F.C.

I had to make some changes yesterday to the article on the subject of Watford Football Club which had been subject to some scurrilous and speciously-argued changes by a supporter of a rival football team, who has signed them self ‘Pleatys dance’.

That user seems to have gained amusement by incorrectly identifying Watford as having been founded in 1898, far more recently than their far more widely recognised earlier founding date of 1881, which is based upon very strong sources and is in accordance with several histories written about the club.

I would be very grateful for your help in allowing one rogue user’s specious reasoning not to be embedded within this article for any substantial amount of time. The version revesions I undertook were required to revert the article to the most recent version which undid this act of vandalism. I am prepared to offer harder sources in future edits and would be grateful for suggestions as to how rogue edits by others could be restricted in future.

Best wishes

Tom Tom Brodrick (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good morning Tom Brodrick

When I found that page, I saw that it had been unstable for several weeks or months, with editors switching the article back and forth between rival views of founding dates.

Neither side WP:CITEd any sources, and your contributions were notable for the fact that you reverted no less than 7 other editors without once providing any explanation in the edit summary of why you had done so.

This sort of slow edit war back-and-forth of unexplained and uncited reversions of uncited changes is no way to build a good article. You speak of "rogue editors", but so far as I can see your unexplained and unsourced reverts fall as much into into that category as anyone else's edits. I don't know which side is right, and I don't intend to try to form a view on it. I just want to stop the edit war and stabilise the article.

So I reverted back to what appeared to be the last stable version, and extended-protected it for 3 months. That means that only established editors can edit it directly.

If you believe that it should be be changed, then propose your changes of the article's talk page, and discuss them with other editors until you each a rough consensus. When consensus is reached, then use Template:Edit extended-protected to ask someone to make the changes.

Note that in a content dispute like this, precise citations of reliable sources are crucial.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Osvaldo valdes 165443/Hospital San Lazaro, Havana

Somehow I wound up with two pages. The page I have been working on and want is: Hospital de San Lazaro, Havana Can you help me to get rid of Hospital San Lazaro, Havana? Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: you are asking me delete a page of the same name as the one you want to keep. That makes no sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you notice they are 2 diff. pages. ovA_165443 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Osvaldo valdes 165443: It would have been helpful to link the two pages! Hospital de San Lazaro, Havana and Hospital San Lazaro, Havana differ by a "de". I see that the one without "de" has been deleted already (if it ever existed? - no sign of a deleted page), but if you confused the name we can assume readers are likely to get it wrong too so a redirect seems useful, and I've now made one. I notice that the text and the infobox both use the version without "de": please could you sort that out. Thanks. PamD 17:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, @PamD.

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: that all looks to me to be sorted. But are you happy with the outcomes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to combine, Hospital de San Lazaro, Havana is its page, THE page, the latest page, etc, the other page has a similar name, it was a false start and should be deleted. ovA_165443 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

'Missing' categories

Hi BHG. I've noticed you often do work creating categories that have had articles put in them but aren't in existence yet. Just thought it might be worth flagging up that the election category moves are going to result in a few oddities whilst being processed as some use templates to automatically categorise them based on the category names (for example, you can see some odd stuff going on at Category:2000 Alabama elections). I've worked out how to resolve that issue in the sandbox of the template, and will sort it once the state election categories have been moved as a batch (which I plan to do tomorrow), otherwise it'll leave the non-moved ones in odd categories in the meantime. Cheers, Number 57 00:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2022 in Alabama

A tag has been placed on Category:2022 in Alabama 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. Home Lander (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Appropedia

I was told today that an editor on a website called Appropedia is claiming to me: http://www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Lonny&diff=378981&oldid=378859

For the record:

1. I had never even heard of Appropedia until I was notified about it this morning, by email
2. I have not edited Appropedia
3. I have no account on Appropedia
4. I am not User:Dove on Appropedia

I see that http://www.appropedia.org/User:Dove uses large chunks of text off my userpage. All en.Wikipedia content is licensed as WP:CC BY-SA, so it is fine to reuse it if the source is attributed. The lack of attribution at http://www.appropedia.org/User:Dove is a breach of the CC BY-SA license.

From my brief glance today, Appropedia looks like a lovely idea, and I wish all involved good luck in building that website.

However, the reputation of any website is not enhanced by copyright violations or by impersonation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikpedidians who are a absent-minded creature has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikpedidians who are a absent-minded creature, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:People educated at Roedean School, England has been nominated for discussion

Category:People educated at Roedean School, England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians by philosophy‎

Thank you for your CfD on sports fans. What is your take on this category and its subcategories: Category:Wikipedians by philosophy? --Pudeo (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pudeo

That looks to me like a set of partisan groupings, rather than a tool to help collaboration (as required by WP:USERCAT).

They should renamed to "interested in", or deleted, per extensive precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I might take it up later. However, if you are interested, you are free to nominate them for rename by me. One thing to consider is that some philosophies are also double-categorized at Category:Wikipedians by religion. Religion is a more difficult question, whereas most of those philosophies are indeed political or partisan. --Pudeo (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You have my support in deleting all of the above. I don't see how it helps the encyclopedia to group users based on their religion or philosophies on various things, but in the past this has received serious pushback. VegaDark (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Category U.S. State elections by year/core/sandbox

Thanks for fixing the protection on this template and for explaining it to me. —GoldRingChip 19:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No prob, @GoldRingChip. You're welcome.

A switchover as big as the election year format inevitably involves a few transitional steps, and when one of those steps exposes a vulnerability like the one you spotted, you were quite right to promptly protect. It was much better to have protection which was lifted after further evaluation than to leave a vulnerabilty in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Inter Wehnen players has been nominated for discussion

Category:Inter Wehnen players, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: Women of War and Peace Play! January geofocus: Caucasus New, year-long initiative: Suffrage Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Template:Uncategorized/core

Hi. I was wondering why did you create this separate spin-off? The issue can be handled just as well by replacing {{Uncategorized/core|small={{{small|}}}|demospace={{{demospace|}}}|date={{{date|}}}}} by the content of {{Uncategorized/core}}. It's just a pointless new subpage. I say that because even the more complicated article maintenance tags like {{Cleanup}} don't have any /core. Suggest you move the content back. SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@SD0001:

I didn't create a "separate spin-off". I created a subpage.

I did that when adding the namespace checks because I thought that the code would be easier to read and maintain when done this way.

In hindsight, something near that level of clarity could probably achieved with lot of indenting and comments, but that's more work.

I don't see any gain that justifies the work of re-integrating the two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! Thank you, K.e.coffman. Best wishes to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:NiD.29/Aircraft Template

I am confused as to why text that is already disabled with nowiki tags needs to have a leading : on categories, and what that would possibly have to do with WP:USERNOCAT? Categories are remmed out until the pages made from my template are live, so they do not appear in those categories prematurely. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @NiD.29

See the previous version[32] of that page. It was on the cleanup list at WP:POLLUTEDCATS because it was in a content category, in this case Category:Aviation-related lists.

When I find such a page, I use a simple cleanup script which simply replaces all instances of [[Category: with [[:Category:.

The regex also allows for spaces such as [[ Category : ... but after 2 hours of faffing around trying to write a regex which would not change code inside HTML comments or nowiki tags, I found I could make one which skipped one or the other but not both. Maybe a more skilled regex editor would do better, but that's as far as I got.

So I decided to just keep it simple, and not try to skip. That means that in some cases, such as your page, my script makes more changes than are needed. Of course, if all categories are disabled, then the page won't end up on the cleanup lists ... so this happens only in the small minority of cases where some categories are disabled but others are not.

Feel free to make whatever changes you like to ensure that your template meets your needs without being categorised in a content category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The real problem was there was no <nowiki>...</nowiki> closing tag after the final category tag, which it seems only affects categories. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @NiD.29. Glad it is all sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Cat question

Hi, what is the difference between Category:Royal Society of Arts, Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts, and Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts? See, e.g., Paul Atherton. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23:

Isn't that clear from the category titles and hierarchy?

• Category:Royal Society of Arts is the broad topic category for everything related to the RSA.
  • Category:People associated with the Royal Society of Arts is the subcat for people
    • Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts is for ppl who hold the specific rank of Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts

Atherton was just overcategorised. Now fixed[33].

I see that we have an IP busy overcategorising. A warning is needed, and if that continues, a block may eventually be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You have to understand that you're a category expert. I'm a category idiot. I can do things like remove a cat that is wholly unsupported in the body of the article, or add a cat that obviously should be added, but when it comes to hierarchical cats, unless the top cat says "I'm a container cat", I never know when a person can go in two or more cats within the same hierarchy. One more question: What is the difference between the people in the associated cat and the people who hold the rank? I assumed the associated cat was for employees or other people literally associated with the society, but if I'm right, there are a lot of people in that cat who don't belong there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Bbb23. I guess I am a bit of category wonk!

Anyway, I looked more closely at both cats, and found a history which I had forgotten, so I listed them both for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 22#RSA. As you'll see, the history is messy. This sort of category can be an awful time-swamp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You deserve a prize for your work and analysis. When I was told that people who had been given the award were entitled to FRSA after their name in the opening lead sentence, I was frankly puzzled by some of the people who had gotten the award. They just didn't seem that special to me; Atherton is a good example, but I couldn't really fight the MOS guideline, which is why I re-added FRSA to the Atherton article. Also, being an American, English gentlemen's clubs are an institution that I'm familiar with only through novels.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bbb23. It's bit time-consuming, but as Edison said "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.".

Sadly, on en.wp a lot of that perspiration goes into unravelling the thickets created by a few editors who get a bee in their bonnets about something which they believe is undervalued, and/or decide that WP:CONSENSUS applies only when it suits them.

One of the oddities of English culture is that its focus on rank and status only grudgingly and belatedly accommodated the notions of talent and achievement as worthy of recognition alongside the old ranking system based descent and land ownership. Alongside the immense scholarship of the learned societies, we have the likes of the late Tory MP Alan Clark who dismissed the then senior minister Michael Heseltine as the kind of person "who bought his own furniture".

So when the English began to try to incorporate into their hierarchies the upstarts whose notability was merely based on talent and/or industry, they adopt the old forms: peerages for industrialists, knighthoods for some scholars, and "Royal" labels for new institutions. The result is that in the forest of grand titles, it can be difficult to unravel the social ranking exercise from the achievements.

I lived in England for a few decades, and was a minor player on the edges of some of its power structures, so I guess I developed a bit of a nose for how to navigate some of it. But there is much opacity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're anything like me ... so just have a cookie

I had thought about posting "... Facepalm. BHG is smart, she left". As a response to that last comment, but, if you're anything like me, you struggle to "just let it go" when people spout off in that manner. That engagement won't produce anything useful. Come, have a spicy cookie with me and Drmies. Forgot the cleanup, it can wait. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mr rnddude.

You're right. I tried to justify it to myself as "explaining why I left", but that was silly: either I left or I didn't.

BTW, it reminds me of a lovely thing I heard some years ago: the Law of Sulks. "Once you've unsulked you can't resulk".

Same goes for flounce and unflounce, which was a bit what I did there. Facepalm

Anyway, cookies sounds like a great idea. Esp spicy cookie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Chrismouse:)

so, just where Chrismousies hidden?

Hi BrownHairedGirl, hope you have a great festive season. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Kindred edits

Thanks for your note. I fixed the article, adding citations and text. Activist (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, @Activist.

And happy christmas! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

your note in editing my sandbox page

Hi. I received your note about adding categories to sandbox pages, and must say first that I was somewhat taken aback by someone editing my unfinished sandbox article. I eventually figured out that you wanted me to add another set of colons to the category lists, and am writing to respectfully disagree. The reason an article is in my sandbox and not posted is because it isn't ready for prime time, and may have major problems. This article I quickly noted had a category of 1918 deaths although the subject died in 1916. A couple of days ago, the sandbox article had a Virginia delegate infobox because findagrave said someone was a legislator, although trips to two libraries eventually confirmed he was not, only worked (probably part time) for the legislature for several years. Because I'm not a paid editor,I often cannot know when I can visit an appropriate research library to finish a sandbox article. Furthermore, because my work process often starts with a prior article, I sometimes don't address the different categories in the new article until late in my personal article creation process. I checked another legislator's article that I didn't create (but edited significantly because of other errors) and those links work without the added colons. I glanced at the WP link you gave, but it was very long and I couldn't find any section requiring hot links in sandbox articles. I didn't revert your edit, merely correct the wrong death date error, and would appreciate a more specific link. Thanks for your attention.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You've misunderstood, I think. BHG wanted to take your draft out of those categories, not make them work. USERNOCAT: Similarly, user subpages that are draft versions of articles should be kept out of content categories, but are permitted in non-content or project categories, like Category:User essays. When you add a category to a page, the page gets listed in that category. Non-articles should not appear in categories intended solely for navigating between related articles. In effect, your draft was appearing in over half a dozen article only categories. Hence, BHG edited your sandbox to remove your draft from those categories. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Jweaver28, and thanks for your message.

The link is WP:USERNOCAT. That's a shortcut to Wikipedia:Categorization#User_pages. It's only 111 words.

Of course, any editor is free to disagree with any guideline ... but Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, so if you want to change the guideline then please seek a consensus to do so (an RFC is the usual way). Until then, we work within the existing consensus.

You note The reason an article is in my sandbox and not posted is because it isn't ready for prime time, and may have major problems. That's great; take whatever time you need to get it ready. It's exactly why articles are developed in sandboxes rather than posted live ... and it's also exactly why drafts don't in the categories for live articles.

The correct categories can be added when the article goes live, by being moved out of the sandbox into article space.

In the meantime, converting the categories to links is just one of several ways to disable. More at WP:User pages#Categories,_templates_that_add_categories,_and_redirects.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the heads up. Seems for a while been inadvertently creating the problem I thought I was avoiding. I was especially annoyed about that Confederate vet article because I couldn't confirm his service dates on ancestry.com though he was responsible for compiling the Virginia records, perhaps because of his common name and a seemingly recent agreement between ancestry.com and fold3, or another example of ancestry.com cutting back on its library edition. Turns out there were about a half dozen different units sometimes called the 2nd Virginia infantry volunteers, including a (West) Virginia unit enrolled at Charlestown or Charles Town(which even are in different counties). While the research library I was at had a book describing all the 2nd Va. units very briefly, this guy didn't turn up as an officer (tho the unit was recruited by another Virginia delegate who became an officer even If I haven't gotten around to his bio).Jweaver28 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello BrownHairedGirl, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Jacona (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, @Jacona.

Best seasonal greetings to you too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

USERCAT/REDNOT etc

Just to let you know, I proposed a technical fix on Drmies's talk page for that stuff, so next time you post the standard paragraph on someone's talk page, you can include it. It'll display redirected categories as redlinks on user pages only, emulating redlinked categories: body.ns-2 #catlinks a.mw-redirect { color: #ba0000; font-style: normal; }. Happy holidays! Enterprisey (talk!) 08:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Enterprisey, and merry christmas!

I appreciate your effort to find a keep-more-people-happy solution, but I really don't want to get into maintaining some set of guidance on all this.

Your CSS is clever, but it is basically a workaround to a workaround, which is getting a bit complex. The hard-redirected categories are themselves a kluge, because hard-redirected cats are generally deprecated; they exist only as a sort of a least-worst fix which keeps these cats out of cleanup lists. I don't want yet more drama, so I won't object to anyone who implements your solution ... but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage editors to misrepresent as a redlink something which is actually navigable.

In any case, common.css will only change the display for the user whose own CSS is changed, which probably isn't what they are after.

I think that the solution adopted at User:Gerda Arendt is better one.

Anyway, thanks again for trying.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Bzuk. Merry Christmas to you too!

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

your edit of the coffee percolator page

Sorry, did you even read what your edit did to the percolator article? Simply removing the template and leaving its title tag as plain content doesn't make any sense. --2.247.248.30 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's my edit[34].

Yes, I did read it.

And I suggest that you do likewise before making snippy comments.

Happy new year to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

re Template:R from upcoming event

It certainly is easier to link to existing categories, isn't it :).

Happy New Year!

Hello BrownHairedGirl:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Edit summary usage checker sends you to 0%

On your user page, you asked for a reminder in case your edit summary usage falls below 99%. As of right now, it is technically at 0%.[35] Could it be that the tool is broken?Renerpho (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, BrownHairedGirl/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Non diffusing for most women categories

Hi there, BHG, and all the best for Christmas and the New Year. Thanks also for creating a number of categories on women activists by nationality on 26 November. I had intended to get back to them myself but you beat me to it. The only problem is that for most of these women categories, to avoid troubel we need to make them non-diffusing. I think I've now made the necessary corrections but you should be aware of this for future additions. I see you've been handling some pretty high volume stuff on categories and are now high up of the table of active editors. Gtreat stuff! It took me quite a while to get back to your edits on the 26th but I think I've now caught them all.--Ipigott (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Year lists

If you wish you may start the manual merge of Category:Year lists after I have closed the CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Marcocapelle. Will do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that the category is still listed at CFDWM. Do you have some time to process it one of these days? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, @Marcocapelle. I'll try to et back to it in day or two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Done. Thanks again for the reminder, and sorry for leaving it so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification

I've been reverting that Dubliner for several years now as they've been avoiding their blocks on various IPs. I have used the "rollback all" feature quite a bit during this episode and of course there is not an opportunity to leave an edit summary during the process, so some editors have understandably not known what the issue was, but I have left some documentation on the various user talk pages. The latest IP to be blocked is 109.255.104.181 (talk · contribs). Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 17:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: good work. I have wondered how many ppl were behind this.

However, they are mostly right. In the "Fooian expats in Bar" categories I have examined, at least 90% are sportspeople. In many cases it's 100%.

So we do need lots more of the Category:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Opt out

Since you removed a not-yet-existing user category from a template I started, I thought I'd point to a discussion that you might find interesting: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Research_project:_The_effects_of_specific_barnstars. I think we may need a category for editors who do not wish to participated in such covert research studies where informed consent is assumed, rather than freely given. If such research is I banned, as I expect, then if course we won't need it, but if not, we need a way to opt out. Vexations (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations sorry about the intrusion. It was made for technical reasons (see WP:REDNOT), without judgement on the substantive merits of the category.

Anyway, thanks for your message and for the pointer. I spent some time reading that long discussion, and posted[36] my own thoughts.

BTW, I suggest that references to User:Diyiy's proposal should not use the broad term "research", but call a spade a spade. This is a social experiment premised on deception, sponsored by a giant company whose business model is based on manipulation and deception of over a third of the people on this planet. YMMV, but for me, labelling it as "research" glosses over the reality. I thought that of all those commenting on the proposal, Sarah (@SlimVirgin) came closest to the core of it, but was surprisingly restrained on the very dark fundamentals.

The times we are in, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, no problem on the removal of the category. I'm not convinced it's quite necessary to have one yet, as it seems the study cannot proceed as proposed. I wouldn't mind seeing WP:NOTLAB expand or clarified to say that covert ethnographic research is forbidden. I have no experience with making policy proposals, so I don't think I'll try that myself. But given that several admins have already indicated they'd put a stop to the experiment, it may not even be necessary. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: I think we need to distinguish carefully between a) observational research and analysis, and b) social experiments.

The former are uncontrollable, thanks to the public nature of en.wp edits. Anyone, anywhere is entitled by the CCSA licence to grab a dump of the whole of en.wp and analyse it as they see fit.

However, I think that there is scope for an explicit ban on social experiments such as this one, i.e. research which explicitly involves editors taking actions for the primary purpose of observing the results.

When the dust settles, I will propose such a ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Elektron

Thanks for your quick edit of Elektron_(satellite).

Happy New Year! --Neopeius (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Linking to portals under construction

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 ([37]). 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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

Category Sidney Poitier not found

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 [38] 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;[39] 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[40] 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.

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)

Rory Stewart

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[41] 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

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

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

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-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Template:Infobox GAA club

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

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)

Why are you persecuting me?

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 (talk • contribs)

@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)

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

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:

• Category:Men's in short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics
• Category:Men's in short track speed skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's short track speed skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics
• Category:Men's in short track speed skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's short track speed skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics
• Category:Men's in short track speed skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's short track speed skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics
• Category:Men’s in freestyle skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's freestyle skiing at the 2014 Winter Olympics
• Category:Men’s in freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics to Category:Men's freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics:

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:

• Category:Women's in short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics to Category:Women's short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics
• Category:Women's in short track speed skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics to Category:Women's short track speed skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics
• Category:Women's in short track speed skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics to Category:Women's short track speed skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics
• Category:Women’s in short track speed skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics to Category:Women's short track speed skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics:

--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

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[[42]] 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

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

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

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.

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[43], [44]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilene Macia

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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[45], 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[46] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia–European Union relations

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

The Vampire Hunter D page[47] 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.[48] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ras Al Khaimah and categories

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 [49], 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: [50]. -- 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:689 in law

please fix the error on the page Category:689 in law. 76.127.20.109 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 24#Medieval_law, Category:689 in law should not exist. So I have redirected it[51] to Category:7th century in law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Diógenes Lara

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

This is Granato31415, an active editor on Wikipedia, and the great-grandson of Diógenes "Limón" Lara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diógenes_Lara). Last month, on October 25th, you removed the edits made to the page about this athlete from Bolivia on October 22: that editor was my mother, the granddaughter of Diógenes Lara, who has gotten personal information on him from two surviving daughters and two personal articles of his achievements typed in Spanish.

He was born April 6th, 1903, in Villa Rivero, Cochabamba, Bolivia, and passed away on September 16th, 1968. His team was called "New Players", in English, of Cochabamba. He played in the 1st South American Soccer cub in 1926, and the 1st World Soccer Cup in 1930.

Could you please undo your "correction" of this article, or fill this correct information back into the article?

I have pictures about his team that I am going to upload to Wikipedia, and see if I can link directly to that article after I have sent this message.

Sincerely, Granato31415 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Granato31415

your work on categories

hi. I was looking at your contribs history, based on your note to me at Category talk:2018-related lists, about the new category navigation template that you created. your work on that template is truly helpful, as well as all your diligent work and efforts on a number of categories here. I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sm8900. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert Hite

Why did you remove the page created for Robert Hite, a member of the Doolittle Raiders and a war hero? The people who keep removing it are vandalizing the page without discussion. This is arbitrary and done without any opportunity for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.209.32 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Hite, where a consensus was formed to redirect Robert L. Hite to Doolittle Raid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:User lou-0 has been nominated for discussion

Category:User lou-0, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:User nso-0 has been nominated for discussion

Category:User nso-0, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:User qwh-0 has been nominated for discussion

Category:User qwh-0, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rejected draft Philip McDonagh

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)