If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Fayenatic london}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
as far as your reply is concerned, yes i am sure i modify the deleted article Ishfaq Manzoor, so plz restore the same I'll address all queries raised and will modify Mananbhat (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
@Marcocapelle and Oculi: please let me know if you have any suggestions for amendment before I process them. E.g. should the parents for UK & Ireland use "Academics" rather than "Academic staff" to be C2C with their contents rather than their siblings?
Also, I could quite easily reuse my spreadsheet workings to prepare a nomination for Alumni categories if that seems appropriate. For that matter, the workings also include UK & Ireland academics, in case anyone thinks they merit a further discussion. – FayenaticLondon22:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure there should be consistency within the UK tree and within the Irish tree. Local variations are almost always respected in category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd different outcome in 3 discussions and we haven't reached Australia yet. (Foo academic personnel, academics of foo, academic staff of foo.) I do agree that 'academic staff of foo' is a reasonable close of the latest one and that no-one (very surprisingly) seemed bothered about 'academic staff of foo' being longer than 'foo academic staff'. I would certainly hold off alumni until 'faculty' are all resolved. UK/Ireland were not included in the latest one so 'academics of' should be retained. I would certainly wait until the effects of actually recategorising all these thousands of European people have rippled through a myriad watchlists and comments from 'outraged of Bosnia' etc have been noted. Oculi (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a trailing 'faculty' in 'Category:Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg faculty to Category:Academic staff of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg faculty'. Oculi (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bot doesn't seem to process the large nominations page so it's best to put up batches at a time and also do the parent categories first to reduce confusion. I'll send those ones through now. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, I see you are picking up more that were skipped, at [2] – good work!
Feel free to process these - Rathfelder had moved the Paris ones out of the tree (into 'Academics from Paris'). He had idiosyncratic ideas. Oculi (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few will need new sort keys, e.g. a quarter of Category:Academic staff by university or college in France. I fixed the sort keys for the "People" categories where words in names were reordered, e.g. |LGBT, |Blind and |Ice hockey, but I had not thought about this lot. Perhaps you, I and Marcocapelle could make a new year's resolution to pre-emptively insert sort keys when doing a mass nomination. – FayenaticLondon23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would probably be feasible to add a sort key with the cfd tag, assuming it's obvious what the sort is. University of Foo is presumably sorted under 'Foo' (which many were not). Congrats by the way on closing a few at cfd as speedies. Oculi (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: do you have some advice when would be best to nominate African and Asian faculty categories? I.e. should I hold off for a while, or better carry on right away? (I suppose it is reasonable to combine Africa and Asia but without the Philippines). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Israel seems to use US terminology: eg this. So more surprisingly do some in India: eg this. But 'Academic staff of' might work anyway (whereas 'Academics of' would not). I haven't noticed any objections at all to the change in Europe. I still think changing 'foo faculty' to 'foo academic staff' would be safer: who can be sure that changing 'foo alumni' to 'alumni of foo' will succeed? (Longer, minimal gain in clarity, not broken ...) My recollection is that Rathfelder made his usual random high-speed mess of the ones in Africa. Category:Faculty by university in South Africa, Category:Faculty by university in Kenya are a hodge-podge but none use 'of'. Perhaps do Asia first as there is overlap with Europe. Oculi (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping I have found all the 'faculty' ones in Europe. Rathfelder (and imitators) had hidden quite a few by not adding parents which I could anticipate: eg this one. There may still be some with no parents at all. Alumni will be the same, as Rathfelder did most of them. Oculi (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am pleased I was able to help get the nomination through, I only trimmed two hooks, credit for the final hook choice goes to Cielquiparle. If only my hooks could be so successful! CMD (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I use Microsoft Excel for that. First I pasted an old list into Microsoft Word and replaced " to " with ^t (tab character). Then I copied the result and pasted it into a spreadsheet, which produced two columns. Then in Excel I use find & replace, MID() function and text concatenation to assemble the required lines. On this occasion I also used IF() to insert "the" in the cases that needed it. – FayenaticLondon08:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok. i thought you had a better tool other than excel.😅 i often do the same thing.
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Thanks for this award. It turns out I was only just getting started! As you noticed, I found a way to chase all similar results and fix them. – FayenaticLondon19:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over 20 years since PwC traded as Cork Gully. Shouldn't the present day firm take precedence at least in the introduction? The current summary causes confusion. Suggestion in line with other brands such as Houlihan Lokey would be as follows:-
"Cork Gully is an advisory and financial services firm specialising in business transformation, restructuring and special situations. Cork Gully was [originally] founded in 1906 and is headquartered in London, England. The firm advises public and closed companies as well as investment funds in financial distress." Greencity23 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greencity23:Houlihan Lokey is notable as a financial institution with revenue and equity over $1 billion. Why should a small professional services firm of 12 years' standing be compared with that?
New York Cosmos (2010) is another 2010 rebirth. It has achieved notability on its own, and has its own article. New York Cosmos is now a disambiguation page between the old and new topics.
Is the new firm yet of a standing to have its own article? If so, on what criteria? N.B. WP:ORG#No inherited notability. If not, then for the time being it rightly gets only a small mention for the sake of clarity in an article about the notable topic of the former firm. – FayenaticLondon18:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made a start with the Africa sub-list. I don't think there's a need to wait in case of WP:MRV, because there was a clear majority in favour. If you considered that the opposers' rationales were successfully rebutted by the replies to them, you might want to add that as a closing statement. – FayenaticLondon10:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Fred! I went to your page to leave a message, then decided not to bother, as you appear to know what you are doing, and are busy enough, and would recognise what I was doing if you happened to see it. – FayenaticLondon17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yeah; I'm trying to analyse the usage of {{annotated link}} to fine tune the results of and behavior of the new modules invoked by it while also trying to keep the functionality modular, and the original cats were just being placed by the wrong module. Sorry for the clutter and work deleting it. I don't suppose you know a nice way to see if something is in multiple categories? I found an old unmaintained extension that would have done the job, but alas it appears to have no current implementation or alternative. Don't worry about responding if you're busy; just came to mind. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew help pages could be so helpful? 😉 Learning something new every day; that's the good stuff. I'm pretty sure the blurb for incategory is misleading if not flat out wrong; it doesn't appear that the category needs to be "in their wikitext"; transcluded cats seem to be understood just fine (as expected). I'll fix it after testing to be certain. Petscan came back to life BTW. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs02:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring and reorienting a few of those faculty categories. I have just assumed that if User:JJMC89 bot III doesn't leave a redirect from a former category to a newly named category then a redirect to a redirect is no longer useful. By the way, I don't go seeking these categories out, they just show up on the Broken redirect list that updates a few times a day (you can look into the page history to see previously deleted broken redirects). Any way, I apologize if we are working at cross-purposes I just thought that if category redirects were important then JJMC89 bot III would leave one when it moves categories. But maybe that isn't an option with this bot, I don't know. Any way, thanks! LizRead!Talk!23:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, the bot leaves a redirect on moves and merges if the instruction line at WP:CFDW starts * REDIRECT. So the choice is under admin control.
As part of the cleanup I or the other CFDW patrollers check "What links here" on each of the old names and (among other things) decide what to do with incoming redirects. If they are from former names of the University, I would update the redirect and then move it from "faculty" to "Academics of", as that's a name which someone might now try to use. (See WP:Category redirects that should be kept.)
There was one case where I took a different view on whether "the" was needed in the name, and relisted the category at CFDW for remedial renaming. I anticipated the bot's second move when updating the incoming redirects. You happened to catch those redirects before the bot moved the target for the second time. No big deal – I took the risk that that might happen. You would only have known if you checked the history or "what links here" on the new target.
Checking does take time… which was why I only posted them starting with a smaller batch. I was surprised to see that the rest had all been added for processing on the same day. Timrollpickering if you are able to help with cleanup of incoming links, that would be appreciated! – FayenaticLondon11:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category showed up on the Empty Categories list tonight but because Twinkle identifies the note on the category as being a CFD tag, it doesn't want to tag the category for speedy deletion as an empty category. If it was only for temporary use and you are done with it, perhaps you can delete it as a CSD G7. If not, I can put an Empty Category tag on the page. Thank you! LizRead!Talk!01:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It was a template-generated category, but as it had nearly a million members the change took some time to propagate. I set up {{cfd manual}} template at the old page to avoid its appearing in Special:WantedCategories. I initially redirected it too, but Tim removed that to avoid confusing another bot. – FayenaticLondon08:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like it's been taken care of. I primarily work with empty content categories so I'm unsure what to do when project-related categories come up on the nightly list. This happened with some recent changes with Authority Control categories because they are doing some recategorization (or should I say decategorization?). I'd probably be less confused if I could figure out how to close CFD discussions and deal with the JJMC89 bot but right now ATD and, occasionally, RTD seems so much more straight-forward. LizRead!Talk!23:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...keeping the categories, what a tragedy it would be to let loose editors who want to purge to go ahead and purge. Shouldn't the James Joyce category nomination, which was very sparsely attended compared to the other nominations by the same nominator (that it was the same nominator seems important), be kept, as few if any of the participants of the vast nomination knew of the single nomination tucked away somewhere else. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I participated in the Joyce discussion, and IMHO the instances that were removed from the hierarchy were worth including in a list but were not WP:DEFINING for categorisation. So if you care about these, please check completeness of lists, as further members may well be justifiably purged from categories. – FayenaticLondon11:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the suggestion. I went with AWB in the end to add the tag, which made it a little easier. I added 211 categories in total. Does it look ok to you? Since I used find and replace to add the tag, AWB also changed the existing categories. For example, Category:Roman Catholic independent schools in the Diocese of Shrewsbury was changed to belong to the non-existing Category:Roman Catholic private schools in England. I only noticed after running AWB. Since those categories will be created later as part of the request, I think it should be ok. It would be quite pointless to correct that if it the category is going to be renamed later. What do you think? Vpab15 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought forward the processing of RC indep schools in England / Wales / UK under WP:IAR, since the target was already populated and the old pages were empty or nearly so.
Vpab15 if you're using TW and that's how it does it, fair enough, but if you could omit the repeated rationale and signature on most of the set, then that would save an admin from having to trim them when it's time to process them. – FayenaticLondon21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As I understood it, it was previously your intention to make the listings on the talk page fully ready for pasting into the Working page, so I read this as a change of plan.
In effect you are leaving it to the implementing admin to choose which one to rename and use as the merge target, because the bot just ignores both if they are listed under Merge with a target that does not exist.
If you were intending to apply for adminship, I'd suggest you demonstrate readiness by taking on the extra steps.
I don't think "combine" closures can be just copied to the working page, as they need to be listed sequentially. I try to add a note where manual work is necessary, sorry I missed that one. Sorry for the delay in closing discussions recently; I've taken on a few projects in Wikipedia lately, and I don't want to close discussions badly, so I related closing them for a few days. — Qwerfjkltalk17:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Timrollpickering copied a "combine" close to the Merge section of the Working page, but nothing happened. Tim, you have a great history in processing NACs – it was you who got me started – glad you are still here too! Well, if you see any more NACs listed by Qwerfjkl using the word "combine" as opposed to "merge", I've noted the steps required at the diff in this section heading.
@Qwerfjkl: no need to apologise for anything. We're all just volunteers. As you know, for a long time CFD limped along with a few months' backlog; it's going swimmingly these days. My suggestions here are just meant as fine-tuning, not any kind of put-down – forgive me if I hit a wrong note. – FayenaticLondon21:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: And another thing: user:Estopedist1 has just expanded some nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 February 20, which is helpful. Those nominations should therefore be left for another 7 days after the date of tagging. But they are not all tagged yet. I suggest you don't bother to relist them, but just leave them on the original log page, and close them when appropriate next month. Unless you want to help Estopedist1 with tagging & relisting in combination? – FayenaticLondon11:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it can be a hindrance, if there are links between discussions. And it would be more work to re-tag them all – but I suppose that doesn't weigh much as XFDcloser does the work and usually gets it right. – FayenaticLondon17:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, I just add the plain {{subst:CfX|Section}} template when tagging pages for a discussion, which links to the current log page, and then I just relist the discussion. Good point about breaking links. — Qwerfjkltalk20:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot another downside, namely that the old page might have been on people's watchlists, so they may miss some posts unless and until they watch the relisted page.
One trick you might find useful is to relist related discussions next to each other on the same log page. This might have been particularly useful for the various "rulers" discussions. – FayenaticLondon20:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; as I work through the log pages top down, but new discussions are added to the top, sometimes it confuses comments referring to the discussion above etc , as the order is reversed after relisting. — Qwerfjkltalk21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!22:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erik Fosse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two Norwegians, Erik Fosse and Mads Gilbert, as the only Western doctors at the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, found themselves as leading witnesses of the 2008–2009 Gaza War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Fosse. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erik Fosse), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I know that sometimes you like to correct for category redirects when User:JJMC89 bot III doesn't leave a redirect. So, please take a look at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. Feel free to fix any of these broken redirect category redirects if you so choose to do so! I often will correct them when there are a small number of category redirects to fix but, in this case, there are 43 category redirects so taking the time to do this is less likely. LizRead!Talk!02:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: by the time I looked, EmausBot had fixed them all. Those were on category talk pages. I wonder whether it was intentional that it does that on talk pages but leave category pages for manual intervention? Well, I don't disagree with that pattern. Some redirects should be deleted as obsolete, and some should be moved to correspond to the new target name, e.g. if they are spelling or diacritic variations.– FayenaticLondon08:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
diff. The Baroque Revival was 19th century, when Ireland was an entity. I suppose one could argue that the architecture is now in ROI, which has the advantage of being more straightforward. Articles are in both present day and historical categories, eg Altunizade Mosque. Hmm. — Oculi (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hey man, i'm sorry to see that the ryan trahan article isn't on wiki yet. Hopefully all of us fans could get him on some day. :) Blitzfan51 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blitzfan51: Ah, you're referring to Draft:Ryan Trahan. Although I made the most recent edit to that page, I have no particular knowledge or interest in Trahan – I was just rescuing some content from an abandoned user draft. If you know any sources worth using, feel free to add to that draft directly. – FayenaticLondon21:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that all of those empty Year in Hungary categories that I tagged for CSD C1 you deleted because of a recent CFD decision. I just wondered if all of those years should be removed from List of years in Hungary and whether some category trees in Category:Centuries in Hungary and Category:Millennia in Hungary should be deleted or renamed if we are saying that "Hungary", as a country or place, didn't exist prior to 1848. I mean if there wasn't a "1672 in Hungary" because Hungary didn't exist, then how can there be a 17th century in Hungary? Why delete the early years and decades of Hungary but keep the centuries and millennia in Hungary? Maybe the CFD nominator, Marcocapelle, can explain this inconsistency. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!18:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I said there was no sovereign Hungarian country, since Hungary was part of the Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Empire and Austrian Empire. For sure there would have been substantial opposition if I would have said that Hungary did not exist at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both, for the suggestion and the reply. The rationale in that CFD was not that "Hungary" was anachronistic, but only that the year and decade categories were sparsely populated. So I would take no further action. – FayenaticLondon08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!02:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care of deleting all of these related categories, especially including the CFD discussion where it was decided to delete them. It makes for a much more informative deletion rationale than simply "Empty category". LizRead!Talk!22:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you frequently take the time to correct category redirects when the bot moves categories around, which is just great. I don't think category redirects get much attention on the project. But when you do so, could you check the talk page as well? It doesn't happen a lot but they sometimes show up on the broken redirects list and depending on the admin who spots them, they are sometimes just deleted. If you are correcting the category page, then maybe you could also correct the category talk page at the same time. Just a suggestion. Thank you for your diligence! LizRead!Talk!22:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, Liz. I think I always delete the talk page if I delete a category redirect, but you're right, I've been forgetting them if I update the redirect.
By the way, have you deleted any Faculty /Academics redirects lately? I have not had time to check backlinks from WP:CFDWL yet. I prefer to process and check large nominations in batches, but can't stop other admins posting the lot in one go. Some of the redirects are worth updating rather than deleting. – FayenaticLondon08:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: apparently you didn't delete any more after those that I had already retrieved from 20 March – thank you.
Note for my reference: I'm interpreting the above request as referring to moves where the target was deleted/moved without leaving a redirect, and hence the talk page redirect is broken. I don't think I need to worry where the category was moved leaving a redirect, as another bot will fix the double-redirected talk page, e.g. Category talk:F.B. Brindisi 1912 players.
Do you know if there's a preference to also delete the talk page by default when manually deleting a page? If not, I'll ask for that in next year's wishlist survey. – FayenaticLondon16:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I use Twinkle to do all of my CSD and PROD deletions and it automatically deletes Talk pages. I don't remember seeing any more academic redirects since about a week ago. We did have an instance of a new editor insisting on using "faculty" to create a category rather than "academic staff" or whatever the preferred occupational title is now. LizRead!Talk!02:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)C[reply]
Hello! I hope you are doing fine. I think that you have some template knowledge and wanted to ask about something. Template:Short description seems to work only on en.wiki. Why is it that case? Thank you. Some1{talk}13:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Punetor i Rregullt5: Hi, thanks for your message. That template has some features that I don't understand myself, but I can have a look for you. Do you want to give me an example of where it is not working on sq wiki? – FayenaticLondon13:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I have copied the exact same material from en.wiki to some of the other wikis and it seems to work only on en.wiki. Is it something special here? - Some1{talk}15:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see it at the moment even in enwiki, on any device or browser. What app are you using? And does it still show the same? I've changed Wikidata to a longer sq desc "lojë me role 1999". – FayenaticLondon20:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I can see it now, when using Mobile view – in the dropdown list that appears when starting to search, and also under the article title when I visit the page. I confirm that it is displaying the description from Wikidata, not the one that I entered in the article using the SHORTDESC template.
Thank you guys. I was trying to make SHORTDESC work there too, but these are the cards we were dealt. Thank you again, to both. Some1{talk}06:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
I'm back with another request as you are one of the few admins who is familiar with Wikipedia's category system and CFDWorld. Is there any way you can close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Sportspeople by ethnic or national origin in the next day? For some reason, the CFD nominator didn't place a CFD tag on all of the categories in the proposal, half are tagged for the CFD discusssion and half are tagged CSD C1. Then there was an edit war over whether or not the empty categories should be tagged CSD C1 even though they had never been tagged as being part of the CFD discussion. So, I removed those categories as being part of the CFD discussion but my edit was reverted and they are all still listed in the nomination. So, it's a bit of a mess. Tomorrow, the categories that were retagged CSD C1 are due to be deleted (it's been more than a week at this point) but the CFD is still open even though it doesn't seem like there is a lot of conflicting opinion.
If you, or a talk page stalker, could just close this CFD before these empty categories are due to be deleted, it would make things less problematic for those editors who are strict rule-followers. Thank you for considering this request. LizRead!Talk!02:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!04:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sticking with it so long. Most earlier folks don't seem to be around anymore. I'd started as a volunteer developer/operator in 2003, so still feel a bit responsible. I'm an old Free Software Foundation member (since the late '80s), and there was a bit of a push to support this project. As a well known IETF Standards author (you use my work every day), I've mostly been building wikipedia itself rather than the articles. Back in the early days, we'd hoped that well defined policies and guidelines would keep things in check. (The terms "policy" and "guideline" come from administrative law.) Sadly, I only can help these days between cancer treatments. Also I get bored and irritated at the eternal wellspring of editors adding trivial ethnicity categories, and find something else more interesting to do. William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on returning to CfD closures sometime, just taking a break for now. It's great to see so many people working on closures. — Qwerfjkltalk21:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand this edit. The work in question is an original video animation which i think would fall under FILM naming conventions and not TV. Many articles use (OVA) as disambiguation so I don't think the name needs to be changed. I'm trying to understand why the article was tagged. Thank you. TarkusABtalk/contrib19:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it always feels awkward sending these templates to editors and admins who are so well-versed in categories. If they ever are emptied out of process, I hope you can revert the edits that did so. LizRead!Talk!20:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C2B can apply to lenthening to use the full wording rather than an abbreviation, because that's a convention with category names; but not to shortening.
C2D might apply if the articles have been at abbreviated names for a long time, or if there was a consensus to move the articles after discussion or if WP:RM was used, but not if articles were recently moved without discussion ([4] ?). C2E could apply if the category was recently created and its creator supports a move. Hope this helps. – FayenaticLondon15:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean that C2D does apply to shortening in this case. Even though the discussion was far from unanimous, it was an RM closed as consensus; and though the closer was non-admin, they gave a rationale which looks valid to me and has not been challenged. Therefore the category names can be shortened speedily under C2D. – FayenaticLondon16:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say it helps to confirm that C2B does not apply to shortening. That's how I felt about the close as well, which is why I gave it several days before diving in and did a bit of probing by nominating a single category first and allowing that to go through. Thanks for looking and the feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Courtesy pings to MJL and Geni. The new (now redirected) version with "the" in the page name was identical bar the word "Section" in the headings and omits a line in section 6, "The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:". – FayenaticLondon21:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You recently edited this template, adding {{#if:{{{target2|}}}| and [[:Category:{{{target2}}}]]}} @LaundryPizza03notified me that this causes some extra text. Can you modify this to
For the recent one, I'm guessing that means the bot won't merge to a redlinked page?
I was trying to get the page history to move, per the discussion. But it looks like you have to rename then merge?
(There were so few category members, I almost did the whole thing manually, but I wanted to see how the bot would handle what I was trying to do. I guess I found out...)
Yes, JJMC89 bot III will not process a merge until the target exists. CydeBot may have lacked that scruple! The new bot has other scruples too, e.g. if there are contradictory instructions on CFDW then it will process neither.
For the record, I would certainly have supported deletion of the single-member categories. The exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT are not clearly defined; e.g. I was surprised at a recent consensus to merge disestablishments in the Dutch Empire to decades, with no intention to merge year categories for establishments.
As for the ones that have been emptied, it might have been Johnpacklambert. Nearly 20% of his last thousand edits were tinkering with migrant categories. – FayenaticLondon21:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Coincidentally, in view of the thread with Jc37 immediately above, I first noticed BHG in a ferocious spat long ago with Jc37, which proceeded from cfd to ANI. It is odd that the many contributors who say in cfd after cfd that tiny categories are of no use did not chime in to the first one. It is JPL largely but quite a few people merely observe that an article is wrongly categorised and inadvertently delete the category. Eg Liz has deleted at least 2 recently (and then sent notices). I note your support for the nom, and hope that next time it will be expressed at cfd. (This happened before: Greenland organisations I think it was. Wooden Superman. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_24#Organisations_based_in_Greenland.) Oculi (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this puts a church in India into an establishment in England, which is silly (and greatly inflates '1700 establishments in England', and deflates '1700 establishments in the British Empire', as England was in the British Empire, and not vice versa, according to the usual rules of logic). Is this 'standard practice' documented anywhere? Cfd would be the place to challenge it, presumably. Oculi (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These seem valid. Given the above, it makes sense to me for empire chronology categories also to be within the ruling state chronology hierarchies. – FayenaticLondon21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: JPL and I had a side conversation on my talk page and he indicated intent was to better categorize articles not empty categories per se, and he indicates he repopulated most so as not disrupt the nomination. (I haven't gone through these cats myself though.) Closing the nominations was probably for the best as they were not moving toward consensus, to put it mildly. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the edit summary "split from Category:XFL venues as agreed at WP:CFDS" looks like you created it procedurally, but your input is always welcome! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for helping out with one of my userspace drafts! By the way, may I ask your opinion on how it looks like, please? Is it ready for the mainspace, or should I wait until I can add more information (for example, about his professional debut)? Oltrepier (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. I work mainly with categories, and when these are renamed, I like to update user pages that link to them.
The mandate for merging is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_1#Category:Kingdom_of_Ireland, which you could have found via WhatLinksHere. Although there were no project banners on the talk page and therefore no automated alerts, the nominator did post a notice of the CFD at WT:IE. My rationale for redirecting is that editors might try using that title and therefore a redirect would be more useful than deletion. It would also facilitate re-creation in the event that consensus might change. – FayenaticLondon07:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Hello! Your submission of Erik Fosse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mhhossein talk 12:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Technical news
– Fayenatic London 17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:DisestcatCountryDecade/core has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Done I see that these were taken to RFU once already. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)