User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 043

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

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

Ireland project banner

It looks like your tagging is adding a 2nd Ireland project banner to several talk pages, such as this one that I've removed as I did for the rest in today "reassessed" section of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log. There are probably many more but I did not go looking further yet. Have you finished tagging so we can try to got some more editors involved in Irish assessments? ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ww2censor

ooops! Sorry about that, and many thanks for the friendly tone in which you alerted me to the glitch. (It's annoying when another editors' bulk edits make clean-up work, and you were kind not to express your frustration)

I had several checks for pages which already contained a {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner (or its redirects), and AWB was supposed to skip them.

However, there was a glitch in one of the regexes which I thought I had corrected in time. Looks like I didn't catch all of them.

It's a fairly simple AWB job to identify duplicate banners on a given page , so I was about to set it to run through all 70,000 WPIE pages. However, I noticed that the pages you found this morning were all automatic assessments. I found at some point that here is a bug in the Kingbotk plugin which I was using at point for automatic assessments: it is supposed to do its own avoidance of duplication option, but while that had worked for other WikiProject banners (e.g {{WikiProject Gaelic games}} I belatedly found that it wasn't avoiding duplicates on WPIE ... and I couldn't make it do so. Grrr.

So as a first pass I will run the check on all 9,321 pages currently in Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles, and clean up any glitches.

Then I will check the rest.

I have finished tagging for now. I intend at some point to make a further run through biographies, which are difficult to set up because there are so many "leakages" into unwanted subcats (e.g. Category:Irish writers+ subcats includes every Dracula-related topic, which I didn't want to tag as WPIE; and there are similar issues with many other writers and other occupations). But I doubt I will get to that before next winter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise as I assumed if if notified you of an error you would try to fix it. Besides which I don't really understand the technicalities of your process. I just don't know how we will assess the 15K plus articles that now need review. That's about the same number of articles that were assessed just 10 years ago when we had just been going strong for about a year! Thanks for the explanation. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: Sorry, I meant to reply sooner on this. The only other double-tagged page I found was Talk:Bob Parkinson, which shouldn't have been in WP:IE anyway, so I removed him[1].

IIRC I found a couple of others and removed them a few days ago, so doubt you would have found them. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the 15K plus articles that now need review ... I'd suggest starting with the ~4500 pages in Category:Unassessed Ireland articles, and leave the ~9500 Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles as a lower priority. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if articles such as Brian Horrocks should really be assessed by the project. I'm sure there are others whose connections are low to tenuous at best. ww2censor (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: Brian Horrocks was tagged 'cos he is in Category:British military personnel of the Irish War of Independence. Some of those in that cat — such as Frederick Shaw, Henry Hugh Tudor and Nevil Macready — very much belong in WPIE, and not as low-importance. However, others may not belong in WPIE at all, if their military role in Ireland was insignificant.

As ever, editorial discretion is needed. In this case, Brian Horrocks#Back_home devotes only 1½ paras to his role in the War of Independence, apparently with the relatively junior rank of captain. The only source for this is his own autobiog; an independent source, esp an Irish one, might say more. So on balance, I'd leave him in, but I'd respect a difft judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple categories for single politicians

Hi, I was about to close a CFD as Delete last night, but there was an edit conflict and I found that you had closed it as Keep.

Category:Tower Hamlets Independent Group councillors wasn't even in Category:Local political office-holders in the United Kingdom by party; presumably that was the large accepted overall sub-categorization scheme that you were referring to, so I have just added it there.

I still find it surprising that in that UK category with 16 party sub-cats, we have three for single notable persons in Tower Hamlets. I would have thought a more realistic outcome would be either to place those articles in the sub-cat for independent councillors, or not to categorise at that level by party. They will still be in the politicians-by-party hierarchy.

As for the cases about leaders of parties, Category:Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom holds many biography pages directly, and I would have said that that was the overall accepted approach for leaders of local/micro parties. That category therefore does not need the two sub-categories for single pages for Tower Hamlets local parties. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fayenatic london

It sounds to me a little like you are applying your own substantive judgement there. A reasonable judgement, but that is not the closer's role.

In the actual discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Tower_Hamlets_Independent_Group_councillors, Tanbircdq correctly cited WP:SMALLCAT, but was rebutted by the nom's inversion of WP:SMALLCAT. The discussion proceeded without any correction on policy.

Same happened in the next section, WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Leaders_of_People's_Alliance_of_Tower_Hamlets.

If policy had been correctly represented, maybe the discussion would have analysed the situation as you suggest above. Or maybe not; we can only speculate.

But in the discussion which actually happened, the delete !votes were founded on an inversion of policy, which invalidates them.

A new discussion some time in the future might reach a different outcome. But for now, I think it's v impt that a closer doesn't take a policy-inversion as the basis of a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your rationale for setting aside a large number of Delete !votes in multiple cases. It seemed to me that there were multiple reasons given for deletion, not only the misrepresentation of policy. However, you were the closer, and the discussions needed closing; if you still think you made the best decision, I'm not going to take it further. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there was a best decision, @Fayenatic london. I was aiming for least worst, and hope I got somewhere near that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need a little help, please...

I have a question for you regarding a category I created that was saved from deletion regarding World Series-winning managers. I started adding more names to the category, but now, I seem to be having trouble making sure the category's properly alphabetized. Is there any way you or somebody on Wikipedia can help me out with this problem? Thank you for any help you can give me. Please leave a message for me on my talk page. Mr. Brain (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Brain: see WP:SORTKEY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Brain: This is a known problem, and no single individual can do anything about it. Basically, we're waiting for the devs to complete a maintenance task; more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category sorting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I think you are over-complicating things for @Mr. Brain. As far as I can see, there is no such problem in Category:World Series-winning managers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, indeed; but the maintenance task has caused many categories to show in a strange order, with the problems resolving themselves within a few days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Ah, OK. I am just concerned to keep things simple for this user, who seems unfamiliar with many simple en.wp processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for animal deaths

Hi BHG, would you be willing to reopen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_25#Category:Ancient_and_medieval_individual_animals, please? I'm willing to undo the bot edits.

If I had seen this nomination earlier, I would have opposed the merge of animal deaths to deaths, as the "deaths" categories are sub-categories of "people". – Fayenatic London 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: so long as you undo the bots, no prob. I'll reopen now.

BTW, for spotting such things, I recommend keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I have dipped into it but evidently had not scanned it as much as I meant to. – Fayenatic London 21:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal births

Would you be willing to undo your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_13#Category:16th-century_animal_births and add your comments in the discussion? That would give another administrator the opportunity to close the discussion as merging with one merge target instead of two merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: In principle, yes, I'd be happy to reopen as above. However, in practice, I think this one had too much discussion without that issue being addressed, and I don't think that the achievement of a clear consensus would be helped by bolting on such a change so late in the proceedings.

So I reckon it'd be better for you to open a new nomination which explains those issues and proposes whatever solution you want. Note that I didn't take a view either way on whether categorising animals as people is appropriate, just that if it is to be done, there should be an explicit consensus to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

Hi. Seeing as we have been talking about coding and stuff, I thought I'd ask if you could help with a bizarre problem I'm having with links. In reverting an edit at Easter Rising, I tried to link to Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5#The Template: Executed Symbol. But – on my browser at least – that link doesn't take me to "The Template: Executed Symbol", it takes me to a later section, "Executed". I had the same problem in June of last year, but I didn't do anything about it then. This time, I decided to change the heading in the archive, on the assumption that the heading was the problem. I took out "The Template", then "Executed", then both "template" and "executed", but even without either word in the heading, when I linked to the new heading it still took me to the "Executed" section. For the life of me, I can't guess how this is happening. Can you? Or do you know anybody who might? It's a discussion I am quite likely to want to link to again in the future. Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scolaire

Do not adjust your set; the fault is in the reality. <grin>

Basically, it's a known bug. Your link to Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5#The Template: Executed Symbol is fine. Unfortunately, the web broswers don't handle that page the way that they logically should.

Here's what happens.

Your browser loads the HTML code of the web page, along with CSS style sheets, images, and javsacript.
Your browser renders the page, i.e. Web browser engine converts all the HTML, CSS and images into the layout you see on page
Your browser scrolls you to your chosen the anchor on the page, in this case the anchor for the heading "The Template: Executed Symbol".
Your browser then implements the javascript:
- part of the javascript on that page is to collapse any collapsed boxes.
- One of the collapsed boxes is in the first section: Talk:Easter_Rising/Archive_5#"British_rule"
- When it is collapsed, the displayed text below srolls up ...
- But unfortunately, the browser does not also adjust your place on the page ...
- ... so the effect is as if you has scrolled down beyond the place you had been taken to in step 3.

AFAIK, all browsers behave the same way. It is a long-standing known bug (see e.g. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42792), and it wreaks havoc on many many talk pages where sections are collapsed.

I know of only one workaround, and it is crude:

when the page has loaded and settled down, look at the browser's address bar and make a note of the section title
scroll to the top of the page, and look at the table of contents
click on the relevant heading. All the javascript-induced jumping is now done, so that will take you to the correct section header
Curse the WMF for the absymal state of its software

Hope this helps. Main thing is : you have done nothing wrong.

Best wishes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some browsers (some versions of Firefox, for example), once all the collapsing has finished, you can click on the URL bar and press ↵ Enter, and it'll then take you to the right place. This doesn't work with all: Opera 36, for example, will reload the page, and redo all the collapsing and you're back where you were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I mostly use Firefox 56, which reloads the pages, and just replicates the prob.

However, Google Chrome Version 66 gets it right first time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BHG and Redrose. Yes, pressing Enter on the address bar does work for me. Unfortunately, it was not navigating myself I was concerned about. I wanted to add links for other users to follow, to take them to the archived discussion I was talking about. I guess I'll have to stick with "Talk:Easter Rising/Archive 5, section The Template: Executed Symbol".

Is there a case for deleting collapsed sections from archives? I mean in a case like this, where a number of sections were collapsed because they were started by a troll and so weren't bona fide discussions about improving the article (I know there are other cases where it would not be appropriate). Is this something that would be worth raising at the Village Pump? After all, archiving talk pages is of limited use if you can't link to the relevant discussions in the archives. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire: the usual remedy is to simply uncollapse the section once it is archived. That way nothing is lost, and and navigation works. If you do that here, it will fix your problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, It's so obvious once you say it! Thanks for everything. Scolaire (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ALT+D is a useful shortcut to get to the URL/address bar in most browsers, instead of needing to mouse up and click there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

When you get the chance, I'd appreciate any feedback on the link. We tried to neutralize the vagueness and while maintaining a high standard, not make it an unattainable one. Not sure where to go from here as I clearly don't work in policy but in article creation. Any ideas you can give on how to move forward would be appreciated. By the way, we are planning an editathon on educators in September, so would like to have the discussion before then. If it is typical for 30 days of discussion we need to get final consensus by August. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @SusunW. I saw your ping about it and took a quick glance which left me with some preliminary thoughts some of which are a bit complex so a brief reply won't help.

It is wonderful that so much work has been put into tackling this long-standing systemic bias, and I do want to help by sharing my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

However in the last few days I have been reeling from a vicious onslaught from one of en.wp's highly aggressive male editors (see above) whose modus operandi is attack attack attack rather than discuss misunderstandings. It hasn't left me in a good frame of mind for policy issues, and I am tying to dissuade myself from a sense that when wp leaves such appalling macho bullying unsanctioned, it is not a place which to which I should be exposing myself. So I'll see where get to in a few days, and if I can resist my current inclination to scramble my password and walk away, I will sit down and take some time to write a considered response.

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason we have not widely distributed it yet. We want our ducks in a row before we march into the fray. There was a fairly lively, but mostly positive, discussion on the talk page early in the drafting, but since it congealed, mostly silence. I am looking for fresh eyes and reasoned critique which can improve the draft and the ideas it contains to make the guide less biased and subjective while simultaneously clearer and more quantitative. If that makes sense ;) SusunW (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTNOCAT

Appreciated for your helpful edits on the article I'm working on, Draft: Ricky Berwick. I'll remember the Draft No Categories guideline in my future edits. Xy ae na 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment

Please do not remove user category links from User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment. These category links are intended to discourage premature deletion of user categories for small country projects and other projects that have not yet encouraged member enrollment. I am working to encourage member enrollment in these user categories. When users enroll in these categories, I remove the link from my page. I will be happy to discuss these user links with you here or at another forum. Thanks, Buaidh talk contribs 14:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: per WP:REDNOT, A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Either the category should be created, or else the non-existent category link should be removed or changed to one that exists.

Your forest of non-existent categories at User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment breaches that rule. It disrupts maintenance of the encyclopedia by creating dozens of pointless entries in the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories, which I and editors use to fix miscategorised articles.

I have not formed view on the merits of your desire to populate these categories. However, it is very disruptive to intentionally place a page in dozens of categories which do not exist. You may not have been aware of that disruptive effect, but you are now aware.

So I will convert all those category entries to links. That will allow you to track the existence of the categories, without cluttering Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will propagate category redlinks through many hundreds of templates and project pages. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: How? User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment is not transcluded anywhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the memberless user categories will be deleted. How else do you propose to avert the brute force deletion of these categories? That is the sole purpose of User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 20:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: I don't see much point in retaining dozens of categories which hold only this page. Sounds like you are creating a lot of un-needed categories.

However, if you want to use this page to populate those categories , then place it in categories which actually exist (i.e. only blue-linked categories), and link to the others. That wy you achive what you want without contravening WP:REDNOT, and without spamming Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We have created thousands of userbox templates to encourage Wikipedia participation, especially in small and non-English-speaking countries. Take users on the Isle of Man for example. Some of the userbox templates for the Isle of Man are displayed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Isle of Man. These templates link to five user categories: Category:Wikipedians in the Isle of Man, Category:Manx Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians interested in the Isle of Man, Category:WikiProject Isle of Man members, and Category:British Wikipedians (see multiuse Template:User in the Isle of Man.) Similar categories have been created for each of the nearly 400 countries, provinces, states, districts, territories, and regions. Many of these categories have been deleted because users did not immediately sign up for their region. This creates redlinks on all templates that link to categories and discourages new users from signing up for these now deleted categories thinking something must have been wrong with them. This means that someone (usually I) must recreate these categories periodically. I am now 70-years-old and I don't know how long I can continue to play this delete and recreate categories game. I have much better things to do with my remaining time. I created User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment in hopes of discouraging deletion of cuser categories which exist to encourage user participation. While many categories exist that should be deleted, I believe these user categories deserve to be protected whether they currently have members or not. I will create protected user category categories to eliminate the need for User:Buaidh/Please hold for member enrollment. Hopefully, this will be more satisfying to the community. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: what do you mean by protected user category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I've created the following three categories for user categories which currently have no members but which seek members.

See if these meet your criteria. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 22:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: the categories all seem to me to be a bit pointless because every WikiProject want s more members etc. But I see what you are trying to do -- to create a a page to populate those categories. I don't think it's a great idea because the way you have set it up has the general category ("WikiProjects seeking members") as a subcat of the country cat, which is upside-down.

But don't worry about that for now. My main concern is that each of those 3 new categories has been placed in lots of redlinked categories ... which teaes us right back to square one

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deleted categories until I have a chance to fix them. Every category you remove generates scores of template and project redlinks. Please see Template:User in Antigua and Barbuda.

This solution is peculiar, but I really can't think of a better idea right now. Please let me know if you think of a better solution. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 22:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: Best solution: do not create categories until they are needed. As happens everywhere else on en.wp. --23:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree with you more. Regional user categories are intended to encourage users, particularly new users, to participate. Most new users don't have a clue how to properly create and link a new user category. We need to do this for them. If, after a period of time no one is interested, the category and its links can be easily deleted. Otherwise, we end up in redlink heaven. Yours aye, Buaidh talk contribs 23:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: I don't see how a user category helps anyone to participate. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would become aware of such a category unless they were already involved in a project. One they are involved, they communicate via the project talkpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor this dialog, a new user may begin by merely identifying themselves as a Wikipedian in a region and a Wikipedian by nationality. Once engaged, they may be emboldened to actually take on a WikiProject. This is my experience. Best of luck to you. Buaidh talk contribs 15:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Buaidh: I doubt that adding a userbox and/or category is a precusrsor to engagement in the vast majority of cases. Those editors who display them mostly do so as badges of identity rather than as indications of editing activity. And when userboxes are displayed they are usually so numerous that they clearly do not indicate a contribution focus.

It's up to you how you spend your time, but it seems to me that the return on your hard work is likely to be low. Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It always is. But I'm dying, so I don't much care. Éirinn go Brách, Buaidh talk contribs 01:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template categories

I reverted the change to Template:Infobox animanga/Video because it currently transcludes thousands of categories for hundreds of articles. There's probably good cause to manually add all those categories and reinstate your edit but that would be a lot harder to achieve when the articles are missing the relevant categories. I assume it was to get rid of the redlinked category on Namakura Gatana? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: It was to allow the use of the "nocat" parameter. It has no effect on any articles unless the nocat = yes parameter is used. So I will reinstate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: sorry! I checked, and it wasn't working as nocat should. My bad; I should have sandbox-tested it before deploying it. Now reinstated in a fixed form.[2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

the discussion is at WP:ANI#Topic_ban_on_Baseball_Bugs_from_Wikipedia_Space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...this,[3] your implication that I would engage in sockpuppetry to get around a ban is an extreme personal attack. I don't do socking. Never have, never will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: I had no suspicion you would engage in sockpuppetry. I did not suggest or imply sockpuppetry. That is a v odd interpretation of my comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the implication I would make it my business to go targeting non-English sources is ridiculous. Another user there on ANI said there was over-reliance on that one source. I looked at it, and thought, "That's for sure!" Hence my comments. But I don't recall ever going on some crusade about non-English sources, and I'm certainly not about to start. Your assumption of bad faith is most disheartening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: taking your own words at face value is not an assumption of bad faith. You said it once[4] and then you reasserted the principle more broadly.[5]

Now enough here. My comment was made at ANI and you can reply at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simcha Friedman

HI. SIMCHA'S PLACE OF BIRTH IS STATED AS "Born in Driesendorf in Bohemia, Austria-Hungary (now Střížov in the Czech Republic) in 1911," I NOTICED ON THE LINK TO THE KNESSET BIO HIS PLACE IS BIRTH IS STATED AS POLAND. JUST THOUGHT I'D MENTION IT. IF YOU WANT ME TO FIND A PUBLISHED BIOGRAPHY I'LL TRY. BEST REGARDS. DAYSARECOMING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daysarecoming (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. @Daysarecoming: please don't WP:SHOUT.

Simcha Friedman is sourced only to https://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=577 which does indeed say born in Poland. So the article contradicts its only source, which is not good.

It would be helpful if you can find a better source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes

BrownHairedGirl, it's clear that our personal beef is still operating on your decision-making. You appear to motivated to spite my editing efforts first and support the improvement of the encyclopedia second. I plan to open a ANI to discuss and investigate your behavior. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, @Jweiss11. There is no personal beef on my part. You are projecting. (Do read that link).

You seem to be having very great dificulty accepting the simple fact that an admin's role is to upold communit standards about WP:consensus-building, which sometimes means that things do not happen in the way you would like. Sometimes you actually have to build consensus.

You also clearly haven't ready WP:AGF.

It seems perverse for you to air all this at WP:ANI ... but if you want a wider audience for your assumptions of bad faith and your unfounded assumptions of malice, so be it. It will be an interesting process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One no longer needs to assume good faith when there's been a clear demonstration of bad faith. I've built consensus multiple times in this episode. And then you've used your administrative powers to thwart that consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. But we'll sort it at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long reply for WP:ANI#Obstructive,_spiteful_administration_by_BrownHairedGirl but that discussion was closed[6] by @Bbb23 so I will post it here rather than discard it:

Wow. @Jweiss11's tiarade is the biggest barrage of WP:IDHT and assuming bad faith that I have in a long time. And I have the dubious honour of having it all directed at me.

So I will unpick it.

the CfD/speedy nomination [7]

the issue here is very very simple

WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries says very clearly "Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria"
Jweiss11's nomination met none of those criteria, so I opposed it

In such cases, even when the proposal seems to everyone to be a good idea, it can proceed only after a full discussion. This is the is the same principle applied in speedy deletion (see WP:CSD), that the speedy process is only for use in a few precisely-specified circumstances. Everything else goes to XfD, to build a consensus.

Every week, several nominations are made at WP:CFDS which are oposed because they do not fit the criteria. (In the last 7 days, I count 4: [8]&[9] by me, and [10], [11] by @Armbrust). So this oppose was not some rare event, orsome picking on one editor; it was routine piece of scrutiny, which in 99% of cases is uneventful

In this case, Jweiss11 rapidly abandoned his mistaken attempts to claim that his proposal met either WP:C2C or WP:C2D, but instead retreated to a generalised assertion that this was an obvious slam dunk move that has countless analogues.

It doesn't matter whether that assertion is true or false, because an obvious slam dunk is not one of the WP:CFDS criteria. If Jweiss11 (or any other editor) believes that it should be a criterion, they may of course propose a new criterion, and see if there is a consensus for the change. Meanwhile, my job as an admin is to uphold the existing consensus ... for which Jweiss11 chose to personally attack me.

So this was a classic case of admin abuse: abuse of an admin by an editor who chose to throw a temper tamtrum because they don't like the community consensus on process. I was attacked because I upheld that consensus rather than abusing my admin powers in breach of WP:CFDS#Admin_instructions_for_handling_listed_entries, just to satisfy Jweiss11's demands and soothe his tantrum.

@SMcCandlish posted a message[12] a warning on Jweiss11's talk about such misconduct. Jweiss11 did not reply.

Below it, I posted a request[13] to Jweiss11 to retract. Again, no reply.

I considered taking it to ANI, but decided it would be too time-consuming, and the point had been made. In hindsight, that was a bad call; it seems Jweiss11 has very much not got the message.

Jweiss11 then took the proposal to a full discussion at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths, where there was a clear consensus to proceed.

This is a common situation: a proposal which did not meet any speedy criteria is nonethless agreed at XfD to be a wise action. It happens every day at XfD: in CfD, AfD, TfD, MfD. However, the point which Jweiss11 is unable or unwilling to comprehend is that a consensus in a full discusison on deletion or renaming does not alter the speedy criteria. If a hundred editors had pile on in support, it might have merited a WP:SNOW close ... but even if a thousand had supported it, that would not change the simple fact that it was ineligible for speedy renaming.

When the full discussion had been open 11 days Jweiss11 posted[14] there pinging me to as me to close it. I replied a few hours later to say after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.

That remains my view. Lie every other editor on en.wp, I am a volunteer. I will not abuse any privileges to harm another editor and I will usually try ro help if I can ... but my volunteered time is not avaialble to assist editors who have chosen to make unretracted personal atavks on me for uholdiong comunity norms. If the communitu decides that an admin is not free to make such choices, then I will promptly resign my 12yo adminship.

Jweiss completely ignored my point about the personal attack and asked again[15] that I close it. I replied at greater length,[16] concluding :No matter how much a requested action might improve Wikipedia, I will step aside and leave others to make their own choices about whether to volunteer their time to assist an editor who ignores basic en.wp policies on user conduct, and who abuses admins for following consensus on process. That remains my view.

Jweiss11 then pinged @Marcocapelle (an experienced much-respected and non-admin who oten closes CfDs) to lose this one as long overdue for closure. Marcocapelle replied[17] to point out that it was not "long overdue", pointing to a discussion which had by then been open for over 10 weeks. Unclosed CfDs are listed at WP:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions, which at that moment (21:51, 10 March 2018) had 95 entries[18]; the Amherst Mammoths discussion was midawy down the lsit at #50. The discussion was closed[19] on 24 March by non-admin @DexDor ... but in the meantime Jweiss11 had again posted to say it should have been pushed through as speedy.

This is all v poor behaviour by Jweiss11. A self-important belief that his nomination was expecuia;;y worthy or urgent and a continued denial of the simple fact that his proposal had not met any WP:CFDS#Speedy_criteria. Echoes of WP:THETRUTH and WP:IDHT.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes

Scroll on to April. I had some time to clear the CfD backlog, so I closed 4 discussions on that page: [20], [21], [22], [23].

The third of those closes on 11 April[24] was of Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. There was clearly no consensus and discussion had stalled ater only one other editor had respnded. Jweiss's reply was the last contribution, only 2 days after listing and 6 days before closure. I saw no reason to believe that leaving it open would bring responses or that relisting would generate new interest. This is not a content category; it an adminstrative category of templates which shoud never be visible to our readers. Such categories rarely attract much attention at CfD which in any case has wofully few participants. The previosu day I had relisted about 10 discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10 so CfD was busy. In such cases, when faced with a close call on whether to relist, I swing the balance a little to "no": when a discussion forum is backlogged with under-discused reader-facing categories, I am a little more reluctant to relist.

When closing a CfD I try to avoid paying attention to the name of the nominator; I focus on the contriburions not the contriburiors. So in closing that Big Sky discusison I have no recollection of noticing the name of the nominator. A fter that closure I recieved no communicationfrom anyone about it; no ping no message on my talk. Like 99% of my hundreds of CfD closures in rhe last 6 months, it seemed uncontroversial.

Today I was reviewing ope nominations and spotted WP:Categories_for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. The title rang a bell so I checked the history, spotted my recent closure of the prvious discssion checked that I had recieved no cimmunication about the previous close, and promptly closed the new discusison as blatant forum-shopping.[25]

Later I received notice of this ANI.

Only at ANI did I learn that Jweiss11 had in fact chosen to discuss the 11 April close without either notifying me of his dissatisfaction or opening a WP:DRV. Instead of following the community's long-established processes for challenging XfD closes he opened a discusion at WT:CFB and after responses from only 2 other editors decided that he now had a mandate to open a fresh CfD.

So we have in Jweis11 an editor who:

made personal attacks against an admin whose refused to break established procedures for his covenience
failed to retract his personal attacks when ased to do so by an univolved admin
threw another tantrum when his CfD nomination was not closed promptly by the same admin
found a CfD closure he dislie and chose to ignore established procedures
threw yet another tantrum when his forum-shopping was closed.

Not great, @Jweiss11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate in the future that you not ~~libel~~ [say untrue things] about me again. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate in the future you a) respect en.wp procedures; b) show some courtesy to the admins who uphold them; c) desist from personal attacks; d) stop throwing childish tantrums on en.wp; e) don't try recruiting meatpuppets; f) don't make baseless accusations of libel. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11, per WP:TPG do not remove other editors comments from talk pages, as you did here[26]. And especially, do not remove their comments from their own talk pages.

I have said nothing untrue about you: everything above is supported by the record to which it is copiously referenced with diffs. Now go and take some time to read the en.wp procedures. The whole drama is all based on your persistent refusal to read and follow WP:CFDS criteria, WP:DRV, WP:NPA, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:CONSENSUS etc ... and to hear what you what you were repeatedly told at ANI.

This is all basic reading which you should have done long ago. If you persist in assuming that not getting your way because you ignore procedure is evidence of malice by others, then those ANI warnings about being blocked may turn into actual blocks. If you persist in making personal attacks and then whining when challenged, you may be blocked. I have no desire at all to see you (or anyone else) blocked, and as a WP:INVOLVED admin I will not block you ... but you were warned v clearly and repeatedly at ANI that you are way out of line, and that if you persist, someone else will block you. As another editor asked at ANI, What is wrong with you?

Now get off my talkpage, and stay off it until you have a) read those procedures, and b) are able to stop throwing childish tantrums when those processes are upheld. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did not intentionally remove your comment from your talk page. I would never intentionally remove someone else's talk comment anywhere. I must have had a latent version of the page already open when made that edit to modify my comment above. Apologies for that. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case you would have been notified of an edit conflict.

Jweiss11, give your repeated contempt for en.wp processes plus your repeated refusal to withdraw your attacks on my character, and your refusal to heed the warnings given to you at ANI, I see no reason to believe your implausible claim, which I note with no suprise was accompanied by no apology.

I already told you to stay off my talk page. Now, get lost and stay lost. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Apologies for that" is "no apology"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Just passing) There's a fairly well-known occasional bug that causes exactly these symptoms - a loss of a previous comment but no edit conflict notice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is heading anywhere in the direction of reinserting the unholy F'ing mess in and surrounding the infoboxes of these articles, including rampant overcaptalization, redundant entries, mismatches between article names, redlinking, bad HTML, lack of list markup on lists, creation of micro-stubs on trivial business sub-entities with no chance of the "articles" expanding, and many other problems, then I am seriously going to lose my shit. It took DAYS to clean up that wreckage. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24.18.128.102

Can you ask 24.18.128.102 to stop making tedious and disruptive edits to film articles? He has repeatedly claimed that WP must format critic scores just as RT does, which has no basis in policy. This is really trivial, I know, but repeatedly reverting him has grown old. Thank you. --The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons link

As we somewhere discussed placement of (portal and) Commons templates on category pages, you may be interested in Template_talk:Commons_category#The_next_steps_with_this_template_and_Wikidata. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a category

Hi, I've never moved a category before and am concerned about unintended effects. There's a fairly dire warning that appears when I looked at shifting Category:Ambedkarites parties to Category:Ambedkarite parties but it does indeed need to be done. Am I right to be worried about doing it myself? - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Sitush: Moving a category is a lot more complicated than moving another kind of page: when you move e.g. an article, a redirect gets created to ensure that other pages will still link to the moved article, so you don't need to edit any other pages; but when a category is moved, every single page that is in that category must be amended too. Usually it's easiest to not move the cat page yourself but instead file a request at WP:CFDS. If there or no objections after two or three days, it will be handed over to Cydebot (talk · contribs) which will not just move the category but also perform all the ancillary cleanup that will be necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are only 12 articles in the thing, so re-categorising them is not itself a big issue. And it is blindingly obvious that pluralising Ambekarite is wrong (it is a "philosophy", for want of a better word, based on the thoughts and teachings of B. R. Ambedkar). All that said, I'll send it to CFD. Thanks for the explanation and advice. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a need for a full CFD, which is why I suggested CFDS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required 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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for EBU R128

An article that you have been involved in editing—EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ^☎️ 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Number-one singles in Romania

Hi there! I'm writing this message to you because you seem to be an administrator, so you have been granted the ability to perform special actions on pages. I have recently cleaned up this, this and this page with reliable sources. These pages list all number ones on the Romanian national charts: the Romanian Top 100 (2000s–February 2012) and the Airplay 100 (February 2012 to present). However, as I edited the pages, there were several claimed number ones that I could not find a reference for and had to remove them. Those number ones are also listed in the above named category, which is completely wrong. I just wanted to ask you if there is any way that you can remove all pages from the category so I can add again all citeable number ones? One you did that, I could also split up the category in singles that reached number one on the Romanian Top 100 and on the Airplay 100. Thanks in advance and have a nice day! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get a response to my question? I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like you're ignoring my comment; was it offensive in any way? Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: I noticed your request and am responding as a WP:TPS. It would not be normal practice to empty a category so that it could be carefully repopulated. Instead, here is an alternative suggestion for you. As the List pages have sortable tables, it would be quite easy to look at them in separate windows side-by-side, sorted alphabetically, in order to identify any members of the category that are not in the lists.

As for splitting Category:Number-one singles in Romania into sub-categories, I acknowledge that this has been done for a few other national categories in Category:Number-one singles, but I think those are for parallel charts which exist at the same time. As far as I know, there are no sub-cats breaking up a single national time series just because the chart name changed from one period to another. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Thank you very much for your suggestions! This is a much easier way to solve the issue, indeed. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Just wanted to thank you again lol! It took a few hours, but now I'm ready removing and adding to the category! Have a nice day; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Establishments by century and type

A tag has been placed on Category:Establishments by century and type 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.

Likewise Category:Disestablishments by century and type.

The former contents may all have been moved to Category:Establishments by type and century / Category:Disestablishments by type and century.

It would be easy to populate the empty categories if we thought they would be useful.

– Fayenatic London 08:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018 at Women in Red

Hello again from Women in Red!

July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock
Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed!

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #21970

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #21970 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

*Treker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Jul 04, 2018 19:30:07

Message: Am inclined to unblock. Also, would like to check with NeilN

Notes:

If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of William O'Leary (Irish politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William O'Leary (Irish politician) 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/William O'Leary (Irish politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

I do hope you are not taking another break as inordinate damage occurs at cfd (and probably elsewhere) when you are not around. Oculi (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oculi is right! I posted a request for your help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/CatNavProposal#King's_and_Queen's_County, as I have implemented a somewhat clumsy fix. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Tyssen Tyrell

Hello

This is all a bit strange to me.

I have picked up that you know a bit about Sir John who was my GggGrandfather

His daughter Sarah married Ralph Ormsby-Gore, the first Lord Harlech.

I know that he had two other daughters, I think that both were older than Sarah, and that he fellout with all of them over their marriages.

I know that one married a Tufnell, becoming a Tufnell-Tyrell, out of respect for Sarah’s daughter marrying into the peerage, Sir John agreed to the name becoming Tyrell-Kenyon, rather than Kenyon-Tyrell!

I have been totally unable to find any references to the daughters, or indeed the life of Sir John.

Please can you reply by email, I dont think that I am uptodate with your technology

Lloyd Kenyon

Lloydkenyon6@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.98.91 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!

August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!

For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question re Category:Jewish contract bridge players

Hi. I note that sometime ago, you placed Jewish contract bridge players as a subcategory of Contract bridge players by nationality. I am currently doing some work on categorization related to British and Irish contract bridge players. See discussion here.

I do not consider Jewish as a nationality per se; it is a religion IMHO. Is there some basis for your having made it a subcategory of nationality? Please pardon my ignorance if I am wrong, but enlightenment would be welcome. Newwhist (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newwhist: Jewish contract bridge players with "Jewish" indicating a religion would, afaics, fall short of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General, first point (probably also of the sixth point). In which case the category should be removed. I mean, removed from Wikipedia as a whole (a.k.a. deleted). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Unless there are articles that talk about bridge players+Jewish being a notable intersection, we should delete this category. If such articles exist, we need a Wikipedia article on the subject, really. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

↑↑↑↑ that ↑↑↑↑ The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's WP:TRIVIALCAT (which has the example ~~Brown Haired Girls~~Red haired kings). The thing about categorising sports players by nationality is that many of the top players represent their country in that sport, so a category for French footballers is meaningful. By contrast, sportspeople don't represent their religion (although a few partisan teams in certain areas do require that their players belong to a particular religion or sect). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Davis 400m record

In the Bio You highlighted that he was "Native American ". You note first that he's "black" but that was not highlighted. This I find insulting. "African-American" highlight that. When using White to refer to a person's race it is capitalized, but not black ,so it's clearly insulting. My grandfather was African-American and Native American, my father was African-American, Native American and Irish. The word "black" was used as an insult, and you should know that. 68.8.81.153 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mathematicians

I have been working on an article about Mathematics in Nazi Germany and when I tried to create a category to place some of these mathematicians I was absolutely shocked to see the mess I had wandered into. I understand there was a deletion discussion in 2007 but how would this discussion be revisited? I don't know what the tree looked like then, but it doesn't make much sense to me to have what could only be called a hole in a well developed category "Mathematicians by nationality" -where or how would I propose a discussion to see if consensus has changed since 2007? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

"I do hope you are not taking another break as inordinate damage occurs at cfd (and probably elsewhere) when you are not around. Oculi (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)"

In particular relating to Catholic Church categories. Oculi (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you're taking a bit of a break. However we have got SWC down to barebones; would you mind doing some of the user cats? They're less likely to argue with an admin... Le Deluge (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

To thank you for your extraordinary contribution. I have just looked up the pages on Cheltenham (UK Parliament constituency) and on Florence Paton. Exemplary - and it seems to me clear that you took the initiative in the Paton article. Then I looked you up and saw the extraordinary amount you have done. This is really wonderful. Thank you again. Alan Griffiths Gwedi elwch (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Troy University at Dothan

An article that you have been involved in editing—Troy University at Dothan—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr Xaero ^☎️ 05:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018 at Women in Red

September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!

New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative

All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Olympic(s) venues

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:2022 Winter Olympic venues to Category:2022 Winter Olympics venues per WP:C2C as all other winter Olympic venues (23) eg Category:2018 Winter Olympics venues use "Olympics". However all the summer Olympics venues eg Category:2016 Summer Olympic venues use "Olympic"; so should the 23 winter Olympics venues all be renamed instead? Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Mary Boyle

Hi BrownHairedGirl, how are you? Could you please take a quick look at Disappearance of Mary Boyle as a quick sanity check? I am pretty sure I have mixed up Garda and Gardaí and have possibly committed other errors for which I apologise profusely in advance.

Thank you and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice presidents of Greece has been nominated for discussion

Category:Vice presidents of Greece, 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. Constantine ✍ 18:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to rename the “Winter Olympics categories

Category:2018 Winter Olympics venues to Category:2018 Winter Olympic venues; and for earlier years from 2018 back to 1924 (23 categories) Hugo999 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

Category:Newspapers and magazines with Irish names and possibly other similar related categories are being nominated for deletion. Thought you might be interested. Djln Djln (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barnsley Borough has been nominated for discussion

Category:Barnsley Borough, 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. Note that there are several, I just notified you as you were the nom in the previous CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:WikiProject Ivory Coast

A tag has been placed on Template:WikiProject Ivory Coast requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid Trout

In your closing rationale on the Daily Mail article' category I proposed to delete you "accuse" me of WP:BEFORE except that is not the case here? Is "non-notable" not a legitimate rationale at all? Not only WP:N applies here but so does WP:NOT (and weak WP:RS as well, as the article is predominately backed by the so-called yellow journalist sites). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ItsAlwaysLupus

Please go back to WP:CFD/Log/2018 September 16#Category:Footballers'_wives_and_girlfriends and read what I actually wrote when I closed the discussion.

When you do, you will see that my speedy close was procedural, and nothing whatsoever to do with the substantive reasons you cite for wanting to delete the category. It was because you had prematurely reopened a debate which seems to happen annually.

As to your substantive reasons, they formed no part of my speedy close, but since you raised them here I'll comment on them here. You say the article is predominately backed by the so-called yellow journalist sites. Which misses the crucial point that the page you proposed to delete is not an article; it is a category, which groups existing articles. Deleting the category will not delete the articles. If you believe that any article fails WP:N, take it to WP:AFD and make your case there. There may be good reasons to delete a category, but WP:N is never one of them. The closest parallel in categories is WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato, tomahto. I concede to the fact that I was "slapped" for technical reasons (a tedious technicality even, which makes my brain hurt every time I read these guidelines since I almost always fail to find what I am hoping to find there) and, you are right, I did not read the part how long one should wait before a category is eligible to be proposed for deletion. Now I do feel silly. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsAlwaysLupus: the reason is fact procedural, not technical. That rule exists precisely to avoid the headaches which you complain of, because most editors find that their brain hurts if a perennially unresolved issue is raised again too soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pebble Beach

I've replied to your nomination, and have expanded the portal. I respectfully request that you withdraw your nomination for deletion. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: Thanks, but I will not withdraw the nomination. I respectfully request that you desist from creating portals on such ridiculously narrow topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl and The Transhumanist: I've been following the Portals project ever since the Portals RfC. We've gone form about 1,500 portals to over 3,000 since then. Many of us in the RfC favored a different kind of approach. We wanted fewer but better maintained portals that are actually hand-made as to be customized and interesting and relevant to a large body of articles. I can discover so many new things by visiting Portal:Physics. But Portal:Pebble Beach just feeds me the leads of the golf courses I'm already familiar with if I've read the article. The aesthetics are as boring as the content and I'll never visit it again because the chances of there being something new and interesting are almost zero.

While the approach that the Portals project has taken has one advantage – the brilliantly coded portals are now much less in need of routine maintenance – I think it's also the new downside of portals. They all seem sterile, based on the same template, and just keep multiplying covering ever more trivial topics. The thing that used to be great about portals was discovery beyond what you could learn by reading through the namesake article. This is not the case with many of these new portals. The connections are either haphazard (i.e. bios of people who were associated with some place over a small period of their life), or so obvious that I don't need a portal to discover them (portals of bands feed me leads of their albums).

I don't think that by allowing portals to exist the community has given a license to create them en masse. If we go with the plan outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals and cover all level-5 vital articles, we'll have no less than about 34,000 portals! The Portals world was always a bit of a walled garden, but I think it's gotten worse. We should ask the wider community: Okay, we'll continue to have portals, but what shall we make of them? I certainly don't think we should continue full steam ahead toward some ambitious goal without pausing to think about it for a minute. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that thoughtful post, @Finnusertop. It seems that the improved software has taken us from having a lot of poorly maintained portals to an even wider crop of portals which should never have been created in the first place.

I think of a portal as being like the entrance to a big museum: a grand and imposing gateway through which I can walk to find a curated selection of key items and quirks from a vast universe. But instead what we have here is a grand and imposing gateway to a small room which is sparsely decorated with displays of all the material on a given topic, along with some tangentially-related trivia. If I visited a museum such as that, I would at best have no reason to return ... and more likely I'd demand for my money back.

en.wp readers who visit these micro-portals will feel similarly short-changed. The creation of so many unfulfilling micro-portals will deter readers from the whole namespace, and degrade usage of the few good portals we have.

I really hope that @The Transhumanist will think again, and change course. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that we have no idea what the readers want from portals. The non-editor people I've asked say they never use portals. The guidelines contain conflicting goals (discovery of new topics, assortments of quality contents, light reading, alternative means of navigation, turn readers into editors, WikiProject windows...) Portals are fairly established from the editors' perspective, but no one really stopped to ask what the readers want and do they get it. If portals were a bit more high-profile, the powers that be should conduct an actual user experience study. But while we're guessing, we should be guessing in an open-minded fashion. I've talked about some sort of portal anarchy... No rules, radical experiments, and we'll see what works and what doesn't – for us and maybe even for the elusive readers. Not necessarily many portals, but many kinds of radically different portals. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: the RFC actually had data on that: pageviews for portals. Basically, a small number of the broad-topic portals got decent pageviews, along with a v few more niche topics. Beyond that, the readers weren't interested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I don't think it's a good metric. It probably correlates with the number times a given portal is linked. People will click on these links just to find out what clicking on them does. Time spent reading portals is probably very short. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: As to giving portals a higher profile, I did a long batch of work about 6 months ago with@@ Fayenatic london on templates for years categories. As part of this we added links to various portals, including Portal:Years, which now has a whopping 393,000 incoming links. Despite this v high profile, its 90-day pageview average is only 16 pages per day.

By contrast, Portal:Physics has 152 average daily hits, but only 22,000 incoming links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly aim for quality rather than quantity. We're developing the tools to create a basic portal quickly but I think they should only be used to fill obvious gaps, not to significantly lower the bar for which topics deserve portals. Perhaps the time has come for a wider discussion on the requirements for creating a portal, and on the (slightly lower) threshold for keeping existing portals which are of reasonable quality. It's difficult to !vote sensibly in the growing number of MfD debates without those benchmarks. Certes (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Benchmarks help on the margins, but we shouldn't need benchmarks to tell us that sets of less than 50 articles are insanely small for a portal. How could it possibly be sensible to keep a portal with only 11 pages? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, BrownHairedGirl. I'm just posting to let you know that List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 12. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Giants2008. I'm thrilled! And the blurb looks fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Please refrain from blanking userpages because of bad topicons/userboxes

As said in my AGF rollback; Please refrain from blanking user pages to fix bad templates. The categories are not manually added by users; they are attatched to a userbox or something I am using; the template for which needs to be changed if empty categories are piling up as a result.

In the case of the two categories you seemed to be after, my wikiEd and eMail topicons are responsible for those categories, so you would need to alter (or put in a request) the templates for those. I am surly not the only one using those topicons, and even if I were, blanking one of my pages does little good when those topicons are on all my pages... ;)

If you need help finding the topicon templates, you'll need to look at User:Mesmerus/Navbar -- the root page from which all my other pages transclude those topicons. Feel free to ask if you need further help! Mesmerus 📬 📷 09:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesmerus: it is up to you how you fix your userpage, not me.

Just please stop it from populating non-existent categories which clutter the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories.

In the meantime, I have blanked it again. Feel free to unblank it when you have fixed the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Now, I have to consider this vandalism. I cannot fix templates generating blank categories -- you, as an Admin, would have the ability to edit those templates. Please refrain from blanking the userpages of Wikipedians, especially those with history on the site who are clearly interested in helping improve the wiki, as an attempt to get around a problem. I cannot change the category populating from the topicon, but you can, as an Admin. Please tackle the actual problem, as I pointed you to in my initial message, instead of laying the problem at my feet while not providing me a way to fix it. Mesmerus 📬 📷 09:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can (and have now) removed the two category lines from the topicon templates, however the issue on the table still stands; somebody who can alter those templates needs to do so -- I cannot. Mesmerus 📬 📷 09:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Mesmerus: in your 10 years on Wikipedia, you have performed precisely 12 edits to articles. About half your 947 edits are to your own userspace.

WP:NOTWEBHOST. It is for editors who build an encyclopedia, not for those who wish to build fancy hompeages. See WP:NOTHERE.

If you insist on running your userpage in a way which impedes encyclopedic maintenance, I will simply block you. So fix the problem yourself, or leave the page blank.

(added after EC) I am glad to see that you have now fixed your page.

But my warning still stands. You are making almost zero sunbstantive contibution to enyclopedia-building, so do not demand demand that productive editors clean up problems caused by your unproductive userpage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your talk/user page to match; you are clearly not interested in civil discussion. It is not the responsibility of endusers to change templates when they are prevented from doing so. Moreso, as I told you, that category was attatched to a topicon on a different page, being transcluded on *all* my other pages, not just my main. I also question where you pulled that statistic from; I edit mostly in WP space, not articles, however, that should still be considered valid. Just because you're only interested in main artilces doesn't mean others should implicitly have to.

Feel free to remove the actual item causing category issues if you encounter more; again, I highly doubt I'm the only one using that topicon, and there are many other categories on my page, so I think it likely you will run into this issue again if you're working on that issue this evening. Note I didn't demand anything, once -- I mearly pointed you at the actual problem you were seeking, as I can't be the only one using those topicon templates (which are just copied/pasted).

Also be aware, I will not take a threat of a block for your mis-edits simply because you consider yourself too important/busy to actually deal with issues, rather than just torching everything with a flamethrower and saying "not my problem." I can only assume you are trying to bait me into breaking civility, and it is quite frustrating, given my local time of 0530 currently. Please just look deeper at issues in the future; had you simply removed the offending categories or topicons in the beginning, none of the rest of this would have been neccessary. Especially a warning/ban threat out of the blue. Mesmerus 📬 📷 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesmerus: Enough.

You are clearly WP:NOTHERE, so I will indef-block you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Mesmerus

Hi, BHG. Mesmerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has submitted an unblock request. Having reviewed the background (the userpage category etc.), I find the request persuasive. Frankly, a temporary block to prevent the continuing reverts would have sufficed. Please respond at the blocked user's talk page when you are next online. AGK [•] 20:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGK

Thanks for your msg. When you posted here, I had started responding at User Talk:Mesmerus, so I completed my response there[27]: User talk:Mesmerus#Comment_by_blocking_admin. Hope that clarifies things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirect error

I think you may have made a mistake when you created Category:Transport organizations based in the Czech Republic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I did indeed make a mistake.

Thanks for the pointer, @Russ. Now fixed.[28]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It happens to the best of us (a category in which you definitely are included). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's coming on SWC...

Good to have you around again. Just in case you wanted to get a head start on the stuff that's waiting for the next SWC run, you may be interested in this Quarry query.... ;-) Le Deluge (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Le Deluge, thanks!v Not sure I will be around for long at the moment, but I have been enjoying a little catchup.

Many thanks for that Quarry query. It's very useful, esp with Special:WantedCategories not managing anything near even its baseline 3-day cycle. I have almost-cleared it twice.

But here's the odd thing. Did you see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:WantedCategories_updates? (permalink)

Seems the prob with SWC is server load. But somehow there's enough server capacity on quarry for it to update more than once per day. Very odd.

If quarry had more easily-used output, I'd just ignore SWC.---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd been thinking that SWC had been behaving itself pretty well of late it just seems to have missed the odd run in the last week or two. It knew you were coming! It's been up to over 2000 at times, but we had a bit of a purge on it and cleaned it out whilst you were away. My only worry with being too efficient with it is that it encourages the idea that there are category fairies which sort out any problems quickly....!
I'd not seen that discussion but at the same time I'm well aware that there's an awful lot of paddling going on underneath the surface to give Wiki the appearance of a gliding swan so I'm not going to give the techies too hard a time. I get the sense that they're finally sorting out a lot of the stuff that's been added in ad-hoc fashion over the years, and it wouldn't surprise me if the "Specials" are one of those dusty corners that is still being bodged on an old server. As I suggest over there, it might make more sense to turn SWC into a WP:DBR, there's no real need for it to be run on the live database. Le Deluge (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]