User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 040

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

Category:2018 television seasons[edit]

I see that you restored Category:2018 television seasons because it was no longer empty. However, the category should not be populated. The "20xx television seasons" categories are problematic every year as the criteria for inclusion is that they are "for television seasons that have aired at least one episode in 20xx". Since it is now still 9 months before 2018, no episodes "have aired" in 2018 and will not for the next nine months. The category therefore cannot be populated until at least 1 January 2018. The existence of the category results in articles being added to it contrary to the inclusion criteria. Last year Category:2017 television seasons was create protected until 1 January 2017 so that people would not add articles until 2017 arrived. The red category was a signal that it was invalid. The article that was added to the category yesterday was incredibly premature and has been redirected so the category is empty again. I have no doubt that somebody will add another article to it while it exists, at which time it will be emptied again, but the category should remain deleted until it can be populated. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AussieLegend, and thanks for your msg.

I'm afraid that the fact a category is red is not a signal that it is invalid. It merely indicates that it hasn't been created yet. May be invalid, maybe not.

That category was one of 400 which were listed in the 1 April update if Special:WantedCategories, a cleanup list which has now been cleared. When I aw that one, I noted that it had previously been deleted as empty, but was no longer empty, and that it was part of an established series. WE have plenty of other by-future-year categories, so I saw no reason to keep this one deleted.

I am actually not a great fan of future-year categorisation, but since it seems to be well-established, I go with the flow.

So I have no objection in principle to treating this one as an exception if there is a consensus to do so. Can you point me to any such consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "invalid" I meant that it was not a valid category because it didn't exist. When editors tried to create it, because it was create protected they would find that they couldn't and so would take it as being an invalid category. Those editors in the TV project who saw it would not even try to create it, they would just remove the category. I did manage to find the discussion regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19#Category:2015 television seasons. Not an extremely strong consensus, but consensus nonetheless. As can be seen, exclusion of such categories is consistent with MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again AussieLegend, and thanks for going to trouble of digging the discussion out of the archives.

I'm quite happy to accept the consensus, so I will G7-speedy delete the category.

However, I followed up on the question posed in the discission about what WP:FILM does, and I see that there is both a [[:Category:2019 films] and a Category:2018 films. It does seem to me to be unhelpful to have such inconsistency between similar types of article, so I wondered then about video games, where we have both Category:2018 video games and Category:2019 video games. However, the video game editors have an interesting solution: all the content is subcats, namely Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2018 and Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2019.

That solution seems to me to be a very good one: it allows editors to categorise by published schedule, while acknowledging that the date is a schedule not a fact. What would you think of adopting that approach? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does have merit but is probably something that needs to be raised at WT:TV. One of the big problems we have in the TV project is that if you give editors an inch, they'll take a mile. Managing TV articles ~~can~~ ~~sometimes~~ ~~often~~ is usually like being a kindergarten teacher. I edit in several areas and by far it's the worst part of Wikipedia that I've seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AussieLegend, I can well imagine that TV programmes pull in a lot of enthusiasts whose enthusiasm may exceed their familiarity with en.wp principles. Good to know that there are experienced heads keeping an eye on things, when so many wikiprojects have fallen silent.

Anyway, I was just throwing the idea out there. If it doesn't help, please ignore it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CCC categories[edit]

Hello, BHG, hope you are okay. Thanks for your help with the C2C thingy. Just letting you know that I've placed the renaming proposal for these six categories at CFD. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating categories[edit]

I remember the discussion (read: fiasco) that took place a while back regarding removing red linked categories from user pages. But I'm curious what you think about possibly starting an RfC about changing categories on user pages when the category changed to is just a different spelling or phrasing. That would permit getting rid of a huge number of categories with only one page in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians. I'm perfectly willing to lend a hand by making such changes, but it seems to me that a consensus should be established, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MjolnirPants, and thanks for your message. Thanks too your support at Wikipedia talk:User categories#The_last_redlinked_categories_on_user_pages. I am sorry that you seem to have changed your mind about that, and particularly disappointed that you deleted my comment[1] on your userpage correcting Floquenbeam's inversion of the meaning of a post by Rathfelder. I don't see how collaboration is assisted by deleting factual corrections.

Nonetheless, I think your point here is worth considering, so I will reply anyway.

I think the underlying problem here is that there is deadlock on the question of whether to change WP:USERCAT as you seek. The RFC which you started has predictably attracted support from the small minority of users who want to use categories in this way, while others stay away. However, as Jc37 predicted at the outset, nobody wanted to close the discussion, because any close will either a) annoy the vocal advocates of such categories, or b) satisfy those advocates at the price of ignoring the policy WP:NOTSOCIAL.

RFC closers are obliged to weigh a discussion against policy, and the advocates of that change seemed to just ignore WP:NOTSOCIAL. So one way or another, any closer would earns themselves an avoidable headache. And your attempt to corral the closer by writing your own lengthy interpretation of the discussion was a further disincentive to any prospective closer ... so the RFC will remain unclosed until ythe bost closed it automatically by delisting it. It will now eventually slide off into the archives.

That RFC you opened would have been better cast as a proposal to amend or delete the policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL, rather to proceed as if the policy doesn't exist. If it had been framed that way, there was a greater likelihood that a closer would have appeared.

The question of changing categories to consolidate spelling variations shouldn't need an RFC. The existing processes of CFD and CFD/S are quite capable of handling those issues. The problem remains that there is a small but highly vocal group of editors who continue to mistakenly treat user categories as a form of personalised decoration on userpages, without regard for the fact that whole point of categories is that they extend beyond the page so categorised. So long as those editors persist in this self-contradictory stance, the deadlock will remain, and we will be stuck with ugly kludge of Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians containing multiple variations of categories which in any spelling breach a guideline which has been consistent for a decade, and also breach long-standing policy at WP:NOTSOCIAL.

I think there is a good chance that this will end up at Arbcom. I do hope that before that happens, the editors concerned reflect carefully on policy, and find themselves a way of pulling back from bizarre claims such as Tryptofish's insistence[2] that disrupting enyclopedic maintenance is a "vastly" less serious problem than tweaking the presentation of humour on a userpage. Sadly, there are have been several comments like that which fall well into WP:NOTHERE territory, and are likely to count very heavily against those editors in any Arbcom case.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope that you didn't just say that I am WP:NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tryptofish

What I said was that attitude you displayed in that comment there was well into WP:NOTHERE territory.

Naturally, I hope that your comment was an momentary burst of letting off steam, and it does not reflect your true intent.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfortunate that you feel that way. I hope that you will keep in mind that I have consistently supported the effort to clean up the redlink list. Neither my "attitude" nor my beliefs are "nothere". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, if you support that effort then it is perverse to make the sort of comment you made there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I will not be responding further here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats[edit]

Liberal Democrats, which is now a disambiguation page, has thousands of incoming links. I don't have time to update these now, so I think I will turn it back into a redirect for now. Eventually it should probably be made into a dab page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, thanks for the closure of Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)#Requested_move_24_March_2017, and for the notification. I will get to work on the links, but I agree that it is best to reinstate the redirect until that is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, doing now ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity[edit]

You wrote that I added "refs to the unreliable Daily Mail" here, but that was not my edit. Can you please clarity? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong diff. Should be [3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democrats (UK)[edit]

Hi, just a heads up but here you missed a few links, fixed here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same again here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill. I try to keep my AWB replacements very tightly focused to avoid false positives, but I had entirely forgotten about the winner/loser fields. Now fixed, and further passes will catch them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen some others slip through in hatnotes and "main article" links, I think that was someone else though. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, I tend to reckon that a job like this is inevitably a bit of a multi-pass exercise. With the most common cases done, the other patterns start to become clearer, and gradually it gets whittled down to outliers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only really looked at articles I've edited recently, but will keep an eye out for any strays as I go along. On the plus side, I did find a Canadian politician linked to the wrong party. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, DuncanHill. It's easy enough to add an extra regex to AWB once spotted, so any pointers to patterns are welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with Template:English district control generating links to Liberal Democrats instead of Liberal Democrats (UK). I noticed this on Three Rivers District in the infobox section "Government". I have no idea whatsoever how to fix this. DuncanHill (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, DuncanHill. I will take a look now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it, it wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. DuncanHill (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got it, DuncanHill. I went straight to the source, couldn't see a prob, then took a peek at the history and saw your 2 edits[4]. Good work!

I have been running a progressively wider set of AWB regexes against all pages which transclude the outdated Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color (now of course should be Template:Liberal Democrats (UK)/meta/color). I have now got the list down to about 600 (from 3600 last night), and think I am on the final pass. It consists almost entirely of councils, local elections, and the odd by-election.

That will still leave a bunch of plain wikilinks, and maybe a few template usages which I haven't yet spotted. But I think the bulk of the job will be done with this AWB run. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thank you. I did notice another type of link slipping through, it's where there's a link to a section in the article, for example as fixed here. DuncanHill (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks, DuncanHill. Good catch. I'll add that to my regex set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More progress, DuncanHill. I have now cleared all article-space links to the meta templates:

Now I think it's mostly it's just plain wikilinks, which should be much easier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babanrao Dhakane[edit]

Hi. I Edited an article of Babanrao Dhakane. I need to know how did you know Mr Dhakne? I am his grandson. I could help you to edit information about him.Hrishikesh Dhakane (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Hrishi[reply]

What makes you think I know Babanrao Dhakane? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clive Lewis (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen Lewis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labour MPs who were also MPs for other parties[edit]

Re: this, he was also an SDP MP, surely he should stay in the "(party not specified) Members for English constituencies" until he is put into Category:SDP MPs for English constituencies? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: could do that, but I was going to do the SDP MPs as another pass, so either way he will get there as part of this process, within the next 24 hours. There are many other MPs in similar situations, who will also be picked up in later passes.

But I'll do Wrigglesworth manually for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle Foot just came up on my watchlist too. I do think it would be better to leave these in the relevant parent cat until they are in all the appropriate new subcats. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: it would either make he AWB job much more complicated (as in requiring me to spend an hour or two writing and testing a custom module), or require thousands of articles to be edited twice. This way is simpler, faster, less error-prone ... and creates a hiatus of only a few hours.

BTW, Dingle Foot is already fixed manually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS @DuncanHill: If you feel like doing some of it manually, here's a list of English SDP MPs to diffuse]. Just beware of Roy Jenkins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?[edit]

Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: read my edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Why would you remove categories rather than fix a typo of one space? Are you suggesting that this biography shouldn't be listed by year of birth? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I didn't check whether it was a typo or a non-existent category; I knew that you were experienced enough to figure that out, and to know the category structure in that fields so that you coukd fix your error. That was one of several categorisation errors by you which I had just encountered, all caused by you using AWB for manual categorisation. It gives no feedback on whether the categorisation is accurate, so it's a good idea to check afterwards if you use AWB in that way.

What you should have said here was "thanks, BHG, for drawing my attention to my inadvertent error". If you just want to moan at me instead, don't reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever do that again or tell me how to be grateful to you for being condescending. What you did takes much more effort and removes valid categories from an article in some attempt to be passive-aggressive. For instance, I didn't undo your edit to this talk page when you misspelled "could" as "coukd" and leave some snarky edit summary--if it were important to fix, I would fix it myself and if there are several errors of this type, I would tell you so. I am not thankful for your attitude (again) and if you see errors in the future, either fix them or tell me what they are but don't do this as it makes the encyclopedia worse (which you know). What other errors have you seen? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelbert Chouinard[edit]

What sources are too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral? The Kingfisher (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kingfisher: I presume you are referring to the article Nelbert Chouinard. Did you actually read the tags I applied? I tagged it for neutrality and notability.

You have pinged me both here and on the article's talk page. Articles are best discussed on their talk pages, so I will reply at Talk:Nelbert Chouinard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy criterion[edit]

Good afternoon! Regarding last your comment in this discussion, is there a particular forum where we may propose to add this as a criterion to CFDS? I would definitely support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle

Glad we agree. I guess that WT:CFD would be the place. Maybe best done as an RFC? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes you made to Matchbook site[edit]

Your Post: Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. An edit that you recently made to [FX] Matchbook FX seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My response:

Hello BrownHairedGirl. Thank you very much for your assistance with the Matchbook[[5]] (Matchbook FX page. It is greatly appreciated. Upon review, I concede that

A. Forex B. Retail Forex Trading C. Electronic Communication Network D. Retail foreign exchange trading

are not existing categories.

However, the following categories indeed ARE existing, valid and applicable but you deleted them anyway:

1. Foreign exchange market 2. Currency 3. Online brokerages

Would you be kind enough to reinstitute the above three (3) categories to the Matchbook page?

Thanks! 69.123.36.38 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC) --69.123.36.38 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful note about the WP:MOS and tagging[edit]

Re this edit, per WP:DASH, a non-spacing dash goes between dates in a range with an en dash between them. Also, you may want to take a look at the template {{Orphan}} for how it's used and what function it serves in creating internal links. If you need any more help, please let me know. Thanks for editing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

―Justin, this is really very very simple. I couldn't care less about all those other changes you made. I reverted[6] your edit[7] to Warren Ashby because it placed the page in a non-existent category, and I made that very clear in the edit summary: "Categories do not exist".

I told you before to stay off my talk page until you could stop whining about my reversion of your AWB edits where you didn't check the results. That is a breach of WP:AWBRULES #1: You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving.

This comment of yours here deliberately misses the point, so I count it as another example of your whining.

All that I ask of you is that you either a) check your own edits, or b) clean them when they are reverted.

So I say again: Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you feel the above statements constitute "whining" but they don't. I just figured I would give an explanation for why I reverted you. Please let me know how else I can help in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page until you grow up and stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination to rename categories in the Category:Organizations based in Poland tree[edit]

Please note that I have nominated the categories from the Category:Organizations based in Poland treew to be renamed to a consistant pattern. Since you have participated in [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9#Organizations based in Poland|a previous nomination on this issue][], you may want to participate in the new discussion, which can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 16#Category:Organizations based in Poland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Adore Delano album covers[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Adore Delano album covers 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 removed 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. Green Giant (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant: whether by accident or design, that was sneaky. See Category talk:Adore Delano album covers#Contested_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy closing of full CfD[edit]

Hi, I don't see how there could be any objection to the merits of your speedy close at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 14, but procedurally, instant closure is only proper for WP:C2E. The other cases of C2 should be given 48 hours, and C1 7 days. (I remember getting that wrong myself.) Hope this helps, – Fayenatic London 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fayenatic, and thanks for your message.

I was tired when I spotted it, and initially got it into my head that this was one of the types of speedy deletion with instant deletion permissible. Then, as I opened up the section, I blinked and remembered that no, it was speedy renaming, and that it had a 48 hour wait. But then I thought that while it would be nodded through without comment at speedy, if I left it open on the CFD page then others would use up their time commenting on it, pointlessly. So I thought what the hell, I'll speedy it now, and save everyone the trouble.

Maybe I shouldn't have, and your very gentle and friendly reminder is something to bear in mind if I encounter this sort of thing again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BHG, thanks for your full reply. I thought you would be aware.

If only we did have an abundance of people commenting at CFD these days!

Even after I learned that the 48 hour rule applies, I sometimes still want to do an instant close. I would quite like to tweak the procedure to allow instant closure in stark-staring-obvious cases... but that opens the door to admin abuse (at least one case comes to mind). It's probably best to stick as it is; so if we have to justify early processing, we fall back on WP's WTH clause or the snowball rule. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fayenatic.

You're right of course that sadly there isn't likely to be a flurry of comments, so it's nowhere near as pressing as it would have been in the late 2000s. But still it bugs me a bit to think of editors weighing in to support something which really only needs silence or objections.

So I'm thinking that next time I encounter a nom which meets C2A-C2D criteria, I should just leave a note along the lines of "This is a WP:C2C speedy. Closing in 48 hours unless there are any objections".

How does that sound to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very sensible idea. All you'd have to do after that would be to remember to go back and fulfil it. If not seen immediately, "Closing 48 hours after nomination..." would be clearer. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fayenatic

That's a good mod. I have copied * This is a [[WP:C2X]] speedy. Closing 48 hours after nomination, unless there are any objections. --~~~~ to my clipboard saver for further use ... and now, as you say, the only trick is to remember to go back after 48 hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about making that into a template (to be removed when closing), and asking for AnomieBOT to count occurrences of that template and record the count in WP:CFDAC? – Fayenatic London 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, FL is a brilliant idea. Truly inspired.

Any suggestions for a snappy yet non-misleading template name? the best I could think of is Template:Speedy this CFD, but it's a bit verbose.
Template:48hour is snappier, but not very clear about its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at current CFD-related templates in Category:Categories for discussion templates and list of templates beginning with Cfd, I suggest Template:cfd c2. ~~Alternatively, Template:Cfd full c2.~~ It should require one parameter, expecting the answer A/B/C/D (corresponding to C2A, C2B etc).

BTW, check out that list beginning Cfd... There are a few short redirects that I will be using from now on. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More brilliance, FL. Template:cfd c2 is terse and unambiguous.

I will doodle a draft at that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have my moments!

If we require it to be subst'd, it could auto-sign, and include a hidden line in capitals "remove this line when closing". At first I was thinking of something like {{delsort}}, but perhaps something like {{relist}} would be better, to make it more visible to the closer. That would require 2 templates: Template:cfd c2 to be entered as e.g. {{subst:cfd c2|a}}, which would insert Template:Cfd c2 full when subst'd, to be counted by AnomieBOT. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010 disetablishments in Thailand[edit]

I discovered this category after creating Category:2010 disestablishments in Thailand. Your creation was misspelled, so I moved its one entry to the category I created and nominated yours for deletion. Would you like the honor of deep sixing Category:2010 disetablishments in Thailand?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: good catch. But someone has beaten me to it, WP:G6ed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had seen the wrongly spelled category before categorizing the article I was working on, I would have just put the article in your category and then ask for it to be renamed. I use HOTCAT to enter categories and if a category don't exist, I still categorize the page and then create the new category at once. Because it was misspelled I didn't see it when typing in 2010 disestablishments in Thailand. I've done typos when creating categories too. Should you ever come across one, feel free to fix and or delete it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|WilliamJE}, that one wasn't my typo. It was a typo by somebody else, and I clumsily didn't spot the mis-spelling when it appeared in Special:WantedCategories. Stoopid of me.

But you did the right thing in taking a minimum-hassle-and-bureaucracy approach to sorting it out a housekeeping fix. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Joseph O'Connor Oarsmen[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

I noticed that you were the last person who did an edit of this article. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered this WikipediaJarekio (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC) article as William Joseph O'Connor is a great uncle. I remember clearly of the family talking about this person.[reply]

Anyway, you have any interest, I have a couple of photos of William that you may want to add.

Here is one that I found on Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/C1888-WILLIAM-OCONNOR-ELMER-CHICKERING-CABINET-CARD-SGC-84-OARSMAN-OARSMEN-N29-/352024212231?hash=item51f6473307:g:iBcAAOxyzpdTi~Es

I am making my first visit to Ireland in about three weeks.

Warm Regards, James O'Connor 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Jarekio (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Armenian people by ethnicity[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Armenian people by ethnicity 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 removed 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. —swpb^T 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Civil Parishes of Lichfield[edit]

Template:Civil Parishes of Lichfield has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London borough articles[edit]

Hello, I noticed the recent migration of categories such as "Category:Stuff in X" to "Category:Stuff in the London Borough of X", which I believe took place at your instigation on CfD? Do you think that that CfD provides sufficient rationale to boldly move articles in the article namespace too? Such as List of people from Bexley, List of people from Greenwich etc.? Jdcooper (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jdcooper

In general, the principle is that category names follow article names. Your idea seems to be the other way around, so I don't think that citing the category move as a precedent is a good idea.

I think that in the case of these lists, some discussion is needed. For example, List of people from Bexley clearly defines its scope as being the borough, so the move would seem to me to be a good clarification of scope; but List of people from Greenwich is does not define its scope, and could refer either to the borough or to Greenwich itself.

Maybe you could start a discussion at WT:LONDON? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, will give it some thought, thanks for your help! Jdcooper (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that helped, Jdcooper. If you do start a discussion, feel free to ping me if you'd like any further thoughts ... and if you'd prefer not to, that's fine too. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parma Calcio presidents category[edit]

Hi BHG,

I noticed your work tracing history of renaming discussions on this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 15.

For the record, there was a complication not currently recorded there: user:Armbrust expressed "Oppose" to the speedy renaming. [8]

So Matthew hk had some justification in stating that the Speedy had been opposed.

I pinged Armbrust to clarify whether he was opposing the original rename, or the revised name that I had suggested. He did not reply by next afternoon, despite being active on Wikipedia with another edit to the same page, so I went ahead and processed the revised rename, stating in my edit summary "assuming Armbrust opposed original but not revised proposal". [9]

Before I de-listed the nomination from the Working page,[10] I did check for backlinks to the old name Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Parma_Calcio_1913_presidents, but I admit that I do not usually bother reviewing backlinks from CFD pages (or any other pages in Wikipedia namespace). I therefore overlooked that the CFD link was a current and still-open discussion, and failed to go and close that discussion as I ought to have done.

I apologise for my part in causing extra work to a fellow admin, in this case yourself, to trace what had happened. I'll try to look out for backlinks from current CFDs in future. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fayenatic, that's v kind of you, but no need to apologise. It wasn't your fault. The editor who took the thing to full CFD should have left a note at CFD/S, and regardless of anything else, that note would have avoided the confusion.

Sorry I missed Armbrust's oppose in my summary, and thanks for pointing out my oversight. I saw the note in you edit summary, but assumed it applied to another part of the long list.

It is very conscientious of you of to say that you will try to look out for backlinks from current CFDs in future, but I don't think you should do that. There's enough work already in processing CFD/S without adding an extra layer to it ... and this is the only time I have ever seen this happen in the last 11 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwimSwam[edit]

Can you take a look at this? It may be an old AfC that was pasted into the mainspace. Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nicnote, that's a good catch.

It's not a copy-paste, but it is similar to a declined AFC. So I have AFDed it, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwimSwam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you would agree to send it back to draftspace (not like there is much choice given the responses at AfD). It seems reasonable and assumes good faith so there is little room to argue. I rescinded my delete support based on the fact that I would monitor it through draft space and if it ever moves to mainspace. I would argue that the user's account is being used by the company and now there is a new person in the PR department who has taken over it, as I've seen happen a couple of times. But there is no way I can support that claim. Well, unless you have access to CIA surveillance equipment... Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 18:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Nicnote, I am inclined to agree that this looks very much like a company account (WP:DUCK etc!), but that it'd be hard to prove. For some bizarre reason the CIA hasn't given you or me full access to its systems <grin>

Anyway, I have posted at the AFD to say that I'm fine with draftification. Or rather that even though the word is hideous, I endorse the action.

Good luck with monitoring it. It seems like a tiresome responsibility, but I am sure you will do a great job of countering the promotional forces which apper to be at work here.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time here and historically. Your time is at a premium. Unfortunately, academics have also decided to take it onto themselves to add their own research to Wikipedia in a very discreet fashion. Others think that adding sources or articles relating to them will bear no difference in these people's future careers. I beg to differ. That's probably what I'll be focusing on going forward, as well as WP:NPP and using WP:STiki.

WP:DUCK is a wonderful 'rule' along with WP:NORULES. Common sense people, common sense! (Although they might all be dogs)

Leave it to me - I will write to the CIA at once. Keeping Wikipedia safe is vital in fighting global injustice. As such, we should have access to such tools. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opps...[edit]

"WI the pun"? Habatchii (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profs[edit]

As a continuation, yes, I have gone back and improved some and I shall still look into it but I've purposefully focused with starting in the basic importances, such as their honored professorship, society fellow status, etc. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CfD[edit]

If you have some time for it, could you try and close the oldest CfD discussions, see here? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing edit war: James Heappey[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl :)

Since you finished editing the page yesterday, James Heappey's page has experienced numerous edits, including repeated removal and reintroduction of the recent controversial news story you added. Many of these contributions were from IPs or new accounts which have never edited any other page: (example 1), (example 2). Considering the upcoming election, I have to say I'm rather suspicious about the impartially of these edits. Can you help resolve this issue?

To be honest, I'm not certain whether or not the incident should be included, so I'd like to defer to you! If you decide to reinstate the event, I have found another source for the incident in question, from a non-tabloid newspaper: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/tory-mp-james-heappey-wells-swore-scottish-schoolgirl?CMP=share_btn_tw

Regardless of your decision, I think it might be wise to lock the page, to prevent further warring.

Thanks, Greg (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 years of adminship, today.[edit]

Wishing BrownHairedGirl a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a word with editor Kev519.[edit]

He is putting external links into Congress people articles that violate WP:ELNO. Multiple messages by me to his talk page have been ignored to date....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: Your bot request BHGbot 3[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Category:Carnivorous, one-eyed, troglodyte celtic wikipedians born before JFK was shot, who reject polyandry on the grounds that one is way more than enough, and who cannot recall having been anywhere near the Texas book depository has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Carnivorous, one-eyed, troglodyte celtic wikipedians born before JFK was shot, who reject polyandry on the grounds that one is way more than enough, and who cannot recall having been anywhere near the Texas book depository, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus, 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. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Request[edit]

Hello, I would like to expand the category articles of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emirati_women_artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.159.133 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous user page category[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, long time no see! I have a humorous cat at my user page Category:Wikipedians who comprehend everything. I've set it up so that clicking on it brings you to Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians and yet it's not listed in the latter category. Is that okay? I don't want everyone who visits "Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" to see my cat listed, because that strikes me as frivolous social networking. Can I keep it this way? I am pinging User:MjolnirPants in case he wants to chime in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anythingyouwant

Thanks for your msg, but I don't think that's a good idea. (you did ask! <grin> So I'll tell it like I see it)

Hard redirects are not supposed to be used with categories, so the bots will redirect move their content into the redirect target. The category will then be deleted as empty.
The whole point of a category is to link one page to another. A hard-redirected category doesn't do that. A category with only one entry doesn't do that. So within its own terms, it is pointless.
You seem to want to create a categ with no parent category. That it is an error, so if your category was not a redirect, it would end up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, adding to the maintenance burden.
Why does your joke need a category? The same joke can be conveyed by a userbox or a graphic or in text. Categories exist to allow navigation between pages, but you are trying to use the category system as a joke board. WP:USERCAT is very clear that user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices ... your cteg is nothing other than a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I can take rejection, no problem. The thing is, redlinked usercats are kind of a tradition at Wikipedia, a sort of seditious mischevious rebellious thing that's been amusing us all no end for a long time. I have started inquiring about whether the tool can be altered to exclude usercat redlinks.[11] Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete this section since you showed up at another talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?[edit]

Wouldn't calling another editor a sexist constitute a personal attack? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 8[edit]

There are no totals for District 8 election for El Paso City Representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2e3b:c350:d4a6:8f5b:bf4c:861f (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Waltham triple murder[edit]

I don't think the 2011 Waltham triple murder should really be categorized under "sports". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BarrelProof

Thanks for spotting that and fixing it. It was a rather macabre error :(

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing West Adams, Los Angeles[edit]

Hello. Not sure if this can be fixed, but...

There was an article called West Adams, Los Angeles that had existed since 2004. Because the LA Mapping project changed some neighborhood boundaries, on 17:01, 31 January 2016, the entire article was removed and a new article, about a different area of the city, was written into that page. The original West Adams, Los Angeles article was then heavily rewritten and placed into a newly created page called Historic West Adams.

Unfortunately now, the 10 year history trail and all the discussion on the talk page that should have been moved to what is now called Historic West Adams remains attached to the West Adams, Los Angeles page.

Is there a way to move the history trail and talk page to where it belongs?

Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy nominations[edit]

Good afternoon! This is just a reminder that you have quite a few stale speedy rename discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Opposed_nominations. Perhaps you forgot about them. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle, and thanks for your reminder.

I hadn't forgotten. I had been hoping that Armbrust would drop this pointless objection. However, per User talk:Armbrust#MLA_categories, it seems that Armbrust will neither withdraw their opposition nor proceed to a full nomination of their proposal. This seems utterly perverse, so I will take them to a full CFD instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, had I looked at Armbrust's talk page I would have known. Good luck with your nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, Marcocapelle. My talk was the obvious place to come. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT[edit]

Your recent bot approvals request has been marked as expired. Please see the request page for details. If you return to this task in the future, please file a new BRFA and we can pick up exactly where we left off. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dabhelp[edit]

Template:Dabhelp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Categories[edit]

Hi Browneyedgirl, I'm having difficulty finding the appropriate categories for Nazi looted art and the people involved in it. It would be useful to be able to group them all in one category. Is it possible to create a new category for this? Thank you. Xmastree75 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wera Hobhouse & cat Liberal Democrats (UK) councillors[edit]

I noticed you added Category:Liberal Democrats (UK) councillors to Wera Hobhouse. Does this include former councillors as I can't find any evidence she is currently a local councillor - see Talk:Wera Hobhouse.— Rod ^talk 07:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod

All categories are permanent unless labelled otherwise. So retired musicians are still categorised as musicians, former MPs still categorised as MPs etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category removals[edit]

Enough from someone chose not to spend a few seconds to examine the info in front of them, and the chose to moan repeatedly when it was explained to them. So I'm closing this discussion, and hoping that the editor concerned will be having a better day whenever we meet again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 21 June 2017 (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.

Re: this and others, why the removal from Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies? DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DuncanHill

It's not a removal. It's a diffusion to a sub-category:

It was diffused from Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies to Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies.

as the edit summary[12] shows v clearly,

-Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies;
Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs → Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit summary had made it clear then I wouldn't have asked. The summary said nothing about diffusion, or a subcategory, and as Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies does not appear on the Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies page it wasn't obvious from looking there either. DuncanHill (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, the edit summary is a summary, not an essay. It clearly provides the key info from which you can figure out the rest.

In this case, all the info is there if you want it, assisted by being linked.

It would have taken you a few seconds to follow the link Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies, and see that it is a subcat of Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies by party ... then another few seconds to see that is a subcat of Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies.

Or alternatively, you could go to Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies, and see that it has a subcat by party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I asked. I'll try to remember in future that you use cryptic summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

No, DuncanHill, I do not use cryptic summaries. If you check my contribs, I use much more vebose and informative edit summaries than you do.

In that case (as with most other edits in that sequences) I used the the standard edit summary generated by HotCat, and since the category names are long, there isn't room to add much more.

You didn't use the links in the edit summary to answer your question. You asked me and you got an explanation ... to which your response should have been something like "Tks, sorry I missed that".

Now for goodness sake, please drop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear, I raised it, you were patronising. Perhaps you should think about a wikibreak. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And stop fucking pinging me. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, man. You chose not to do some very obvious checks, so you asked me. You got a courteous answer.

I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know that there was a reply.

But despite my explanations, all you have done is whine. With that attitude, it's you who needs the wikibreak.

So I repeat: drop it. Stay away from my talk page until you fix your manners and attitude. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 21 June 2017 (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.

French politics categories[edit]

Hi BHG. I know you do some great work with categories & politics and I was wondering if you could help diffuse the one for Category:Members of the National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic? I've started with the recent elections and there are some lists of the deputies elected in this template: {{French Parliaments}}. The current wiki-lists go back to the 11th National Assembly (1997-2002). Obviously, like the UK general elections, some people would be in more than one list. Appreciate you're busy with other things, but if you can help with this, that would be great. Ping me if you have any questions. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lugnuts

Long time no speak, but hope you are well.

Are you looking at diffusing by party, by geography, or by term?

If by term, then I see that Category:Members of the National Assembly (France) contains those lists of deputies for the 11th to 15th Assemblies. With a little regexing, those lists could be used by AWB to populate the categs.

Sorry I can't do any of the work, but hope that pointer helps. Do you use AWB? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - I'm good thanks, hope you are too. I was going to break it down by term (IE each Assembly). That's what the French wiki does, and as far as I can tell, this is similar to our term breakdown for UK MPs (Category:UK MPs 2017–, for example). I don't use AWB, but I'll take a look at HotCat. Thanks for the pointers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lugnuts

I had 2nd thought after posting, so I just had a go at stripping out the names from the lists, and the first one went smoothly: User:BrownHairedGirl/Deputies of the 11th Nat assembly of 5th French Rep.

I'll do the same for the other lists now. Then if you create the categs, I'll populate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - thank you! Done the first cat populated with the first name on the list - Category:Deputies of the 11th National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic - will do the rest. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the categories from 11 to 15 are now created. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work so far. I've just noted that the people in the child cat of Category:Deputies of the 12th National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic are also still in the parent Category:Members of the National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lugnuts, I hadn't been removing them.

I reckoned that should be done manually once each has been confirmed as being in all the appropriate by-term categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lugnuts ... I think they are all done now. Just doing a few further checks for false positives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superb - thanks once again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment needed[edit]

G'day!

Perhaps you'd care to explain here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gregory_Campbell_(politician)&oldid=787364204#Strange_removal.2Finsertion_of_categories

Thanks in advance! BushelCandle (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, @BushelCandle . I hadn't spotted that I had used the wrong Londonderry categ.

I have replied[13] at Talk:Gregory_Campbell_(politician). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response - you had me puzzled! BushelCandle (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fooian fooers/testcases[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl. While cleaning up some categories I found that the above template was in various categories e.g. Category:Scottish people by occupation. I'd prefer not trying to fix that myself. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tassedethe. I blanked the page[14] to stop it polluting those categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester[edit]

Hi BHG. I wonder if you could have a look at 90 odd recent changes made by an American user:146.198.112.199 to Leicester. Whilst this is my home city, the changes appear to be to templates etc. & you are the person most likely to know if they are good faith. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRPG

That's a lot of edits. It's not just those 90, but a forest of edits going back to April, with no edit summaries. See this diff of over 300 edits: [15].

Looking at that whole, some of it seems good. But I can't make any sense of the population figure in the infobox. It appears to refer to some scheme which is not explained. :My guess is that is good faith, but inexperienced.

Personally, I'd be tempted to revert the lot, and then see what's worth adding back in ... after warning the IP to use edit summaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useful advice BHG. JRPG (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorisation?[edit]

The thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_cat-a-lot_reversion_of_User:Skr15081997_required might interest you as a categorisation expert / enthusiast / geek! PamD 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks for the pointer, PamD. That's highly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bim Afolami's page[edit]

Hello I see you've been making some edits on Bim Afolami's page. If you look at the history of that page, you will see that I've made pains to include his full name in the page but someone, with the IP address of 86.12.235.77 constantly keeps reverting that with no plausible reason. As I am not an admin I have no authority to stop him or her apart from just telling him or her to stop. Could you possibly be able to sort out this situation (blocking that use if necessary) because as far as I am concerned, the user doesn't even state the reasons for reverting my edits and I suspect this is more or less just plain vandalism. --Daffy123 (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daffy123

I have looked at the history of Bim Afolami, and I see a few IP edits which didn't fit the MOS and were rightly reverted. But I don't see any WP:Vandalism, just mistaken edits in good faith. So I don't see any grounds for a block or for protecting the page.

I went to the IP's talk page to leave them a friendly warning, and saw that you had left already message[16].

That really is far too WP:BITEy. The IP is unlikely to know why their edit was reverted, so we need to welcome then and explain before considering any sort of threats. So I have removed[17] your note, and left a welcome message[18] for the IP.

It would be helpful for you to follow up with a friendly message to the IP explaining why their edit was inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Daffy123:Recognising the importance of people's full names, don't forget to make redirects from variations of their names. I've created redirects from Abimbola Olobumni Afolami (formal/birth name) and Abimbola Afolami (the two-name version people might expect to find in Wikipedia). Quite often adding redirects like this picks up incoming links and so can turn red links blue in, for example, formal lists of award winners. And it makes it less likely that a future editor will create a duplicate article at a different version of the name because they didn't search carefully enough (it happens). So just a plea: create incoming redirects from all plausible variations of a subject's name. (It gets even worse with women who may be referred to using birth surname, married surname, or both, and need redirects from all likely versions!) Thanks. PamD 13:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PamD. That's sound advice.

When I create a new article, I find that there are often an alarming number of such redirects to be created. The process often also reveals unexpected ambiguities in the name, prompting long bouts of disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Technical Barnstar
	this is for your recent work on Indian politicians' articles.. Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming newusers[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl, i contribute in the lusophone wikipedia. In there the criteria to welcome new users is if they made one contribuiton. I read the page of the Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee and i understand that the criteria in here is one valid edit, so if the edit was good faith but not constructive the welcome can´t be sent. I understand it right? I have the doubt if i understand this wiki criteria of welcoming newusers. Thanks and greetings! Jasão (msg) 09:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jasão

I see the guidance there, but I think it's taking an unhelpfully black-and-white approach it in its first paras. My own practice is to welcome all new users who I encounter, but not to thank vandals. There are specialised welcome templates for this, such as {{welcometest}} (for editors who have made a test edit), and {{Welcome-unconstructive}} for vandals. That way we can welcome the person, without endorsing unhelpful contributions. The later sections of the page a note this option.

See a longer list of welcome messages at WP:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates#Specialized_messages.

I use WP:TWINKLE to generate welcome messages. It makes this (and other) tks much easier, by offering a drop-down menu of templates. I highly recommend TWINKLE.

Hope this helps

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the help. I adopted the use of Twinkle when i start to patrol the recent changes. Greetings and good contributions! Jasão (msg) 09:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for killing my watchlist[edit]

I was wondering why it was taking so long to load my watchlist, and then I found it was because of your edits to the many hundred articles that I wrote on Knesset members (I think around 580). It's been bad enough lately with the various bots doing the ISBN changes... [ this message may contain sarcasm and I have no problem with the edits in question per se :P ]. Number 5 7 17:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Number 57

Sorry about the watchlist carnage. My own watchlist has similar clusters. I wrote a few thousand articles on Irish and British politicians, and whenever there is an AWB run or a categ renaming/merger/deletion, my watchlist gets filled with screenfuls of madness.

I flagged all the politician-by-century diffusals as minor edits (with a consistent edit summary), so I hope that helped you to filter them out and scan for anything more problematic.

I'm sorry that this job was needed. It's part of a huge exercise of reverting an attempt by another editor to create a massive WP:FAITACCOMPLI (mostly using Cat-a-lot). Sadly, the sod refused to clean up after himself (permalink), so after 6 months of polite passive aggression from the miscreant, I decided to put in a few days with AWB. 7700 edits so far, and I doubt I'm half way done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help if there's a big AWB task to be undertaken. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that would be brilliant, BD2412.

I took Category:21st-century politicians by nationality, and started with the biggest clump, which was India. Then I did the rest of letter I before I decided to be systematic and start with A. For each country, I started with the 21st cent, then did the 20th cent for that country, and so backwards until I ran out of subcats.

Would you like to start with at the other end of the alphabet with Ukraine, and we can see where we meet up?

One thing to watch out for is whether the subcats are clean. In the French case I found that several subcats spanned more than one century, so I excluded them from the diffusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I take it the task is to remove "Category:X-century Y-country politicians" from articles where the subject is already categorized as a member of a political body of Y-country in the relevant time period? bd2412 T 19:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, that's it BD2412. But in some countries that set also includes MEPs, and in the French case I found that the task was slighty wider, in that the by-century categs also had some subcats for politicians-by-political-party. Where those parties operated solely within the given century, I treated them as diffusing too.

To keep track of it, I found it easiest to create temporary categs to group the categs I wanted to diffuse to. E.g. compare Category:18th-century French politicians with my temp categ Category:18th-century French politicians subcats. But that's just my method; YMMV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll get started on it tonight. I'll let you know if I run into problems. bd2412 T 20:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, BD2412. A burden shared :)

Two small things.

To minimise bewilderment from those such as Number 57 whose watchlists are hammered, I have used verbose edits summaries (e.g. [19]).
If you can keep a note of your AWB edit count, that'd be handy. I am curious to know at the end of all this just how many edits it has taken to clear up Ser Amantio di Nicolao's mega-mess.

Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, as to both. I am no stranger to verbose edit summaries, or keeping count. bd2412 T 20:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Teaching grannies to suck eggs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 289 pages from Category:21st-century Ukrainian politicians and am removing 102 pages from Category:20th-century Ukrainian politicians. I used the list AWB comparer to generate lists of subjects in both the century cat and subcats of the century cat. bd2412 T 23:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, BD2412. I haven't used list compare; must check it out. I just load all the subcats recursively, and then remove the century categ if present. Probably less efficient than your method.

I have just finished the Hungarians, and am starting on the Latvians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List compare is under the tools. Note that you can load as many subcategories as you want into one side, and then load the supercategory in the other. bd2412 T 01:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BD2412. I have just tried it, and it has the same effect as my previous approach of scanning the full set and skipping some, but without the time and resource overhead of scanning the irrelevancies. Definitely a better way.

I see that you finished the Ukrainians, which is great. I have ploughed on through the alphabet and am now working on the Spaniards. 11399 edit so far :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

323 for 21st century Turkish politicians; now doing 66 20th century Turkish politicians. bd2412 T 14:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, BD2412. I'm now working on the 21c Sri Lankans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About 290 for 21st century Tanzanian politicians; no working through 40 20th century Tanzanian politicians. bd2412 T 15:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're nearly done, BD2412.

I have just finished the Swedes, and when you have finished the Tanzanians, that will be it. My final editcount is 12387. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tanzanians are done. Glad to be able to help! I hit about 1,010 edits. bd2412 T 15:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Can't you just request a bot to do it rather than risk giving yourselves RSI though? Number 5 7 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly categories[edit]

I'm specifically talking about Category:Doctors of Law, which had been added twice to Elena Kagan and reverted twice by me (I can't continue to revert). It was created by a user who appears to have a history of creating bad cats. I would nominate the cat for deletion, but I believe there are other related cats the user has created that should probably be nominated jointly, and frankly my expertise in this area is close to nil. Could you help? Oh, and if you disagree with me, fine, but it'd be great for you to explain why I'm wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23

You're right: those are silly, for the reasons set out in numerous previous discussions (see a list at User:Good Olfactory/CFD#Academic_and_honorary_degrees).

So far I see Category:Doctors of Law and the bizarre Category:Doctors of both laws. Do you see any others? I would like to CFD them as a batch, so would prefer a full list before starting. --16:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have looked a bit more. I saw both of those cats and assumed there were more, but those are the only related cats. Indeed, they haven't created any other cats since last November. Once you've nominated the two, please let me know so I can see how it should be done - assuming I remember.

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you decide against nominating the cats for deletion, or have you just not gotten around to it yet?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bbb23, I lacked a round tuit. (For why, see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Thanks_for_killing_my_watchlist).

Tks for the friendly nudge. Will do it now, before I get stuck too deeply into other things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Bbb23, it's done.

You asked for an explanation of how, so here goes:

I used WP:TWINKLE to nominate Category:Doctors of Law. Twinkle automagically made 3 edits for em: it tagged the category[a], notified its creator[20], and created a new discussion section[21] at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4#Category:Doctors_of_Law. (I lurve Twinkle. It saves lottsa work, and reduces errors).
Twinkle opened up the CFD discussion page for, where I manually added[22] to the discussion Category:Doctors of both laws
I then edited Category:Doctors of both laws, to tag it as under discussion at CFD, by inserting at the top of the page:{{subst:cfd|Category:Doctors of Law}}.
The parameter is the title of the already-existing discussion section.

Easy :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy for you, BHG.

Thanks for the nominations and the detailed explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rayment[edit]

per the editnote displayed when commenting on his page, I prefer to discussions to be kept one place. So I have copied[23] this reply to User talk:PBS#Template:Rayment_etc, and will continue discussion there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)@

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.

There is a discussion at Template talk:Rayment#Reliability which includes a link which I have updated to the archive: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage/Archive 10#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages that took place in 2012, and to which you contributed. That archived section includes a collapsed list of links to 16 previous discussions.

As the talk page of the template is fairly low volume, I would suggest that if you want to discuss it further that you start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. If you do please put a see also at the top and link to the old archived discussion and please inform me about it.

You have just beaten me to it. But I will leave this here. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talk page "Unless there is evidence of a consensus, I propose to remove the self-published and better source tags." Please do not do that, but if you want to change them then get a consensus to do so by starting a conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. For example what is your evidence that the pages are not self-published? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2017 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Filipino basketball players[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Filipino basketball players 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 removed 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. —swpb^T 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year ranges[edit]

Hello BHG, greetings from the other end of the world. I see you are doing AWB runs on dashes in succession boxes. The relevant guideline is of course WP:DATERANGE and AWB doesn't pick up something like [[United Kingdom general election, 1865|1865]] – [[United Kingdom general election, 1886|1886]], which results in a spaced year range in contravention of the MOS guidance. Maybe you can teach AWB a workaround, or maybe it's something to keep an eye on and do manually. Have fixed this particularly instance. Schwede66 05:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schwede66, and thanks for your message.

I have been replicating the spaces as I found them, because in some cases they are justified per the MOS. Some succession boxes include months in the ranges: those involving the UK's two-election years of 1910 & 1974, Ireland's two-election years of 1927 & 1982, and many other random cases where someone held an office for a period within one calendar year (e.g. "Minister For Silly Walks, May 1969 – July 1969").

My regex to find the date ranges in boxes is already pretty complex. I'm not a regex superstar, and it took me over an hour to polish and debug the following, which works with both linked and unlinked dates, handles both month-year and bare year cases, and which doesn't disrupt dashes in year-range disambiguated article names (e.g. "John Smith (1066–1815)"):

(?<f1>\{\{(succession\s+box|s-ttl)(\[\[[^\]]*\]\]|[^\}\]\[])*(\[\[[^\]]+\|(((January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)|((Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sept|Oct|Nov|Dec)\.))\s+)?\d\d\d\d\]\]|(((January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)|((Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sept|Oct|Nov|Dec)\.))\s+)?\d\d\d\d)\s*)-(?<f2>\s*(\[\[[^\]]+\|(((January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)|((Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sept|Oct|Nov|Dec)\.))\s+)?\d\d\d\d\]\]|(((January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)|((Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sept|Oct|Nov|Dec)\.))\s+)?\d\d\d\d))

I didn't want to add the extra complexity of making special cases for when one or both sides of the range includes a month. In my experience, the greater the complexity of a regex, the greater the chance of an unforeseen glitch, and I was already pushing the limits of what I felt safe relying on.

Plus, to be honest, my eye finds that in succession boxes, spaces around year-pair rabges don't jar they way they would in running text, and may actually help readability. So I am in no hurry to remove them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Schwede66, it just occurred to me that you might find this script useful: User:BrownHairedGirl/biogdashes.js. I use it prolifically on biographies, 'cos it does a huge range of fixes in one pass, and thanks to the clever programming of is creator User:GregU, it avoids all sorts of false positives. In thousands of uses, I can't think of a single time it screwed up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I have GregU's dashes.js as one of my scripts, use it heaps, and it's nothing but brilliant. I don't restrict usage to bios, though. Schwede66 03:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Keane and Stephen Keogh cases in point[edit]

Both University College Cork RFC players and categorized as such but other than University College there is nothing in their articles saying they are from Cork. And going to university in Foo doesn't make someone from Foo....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: see User_talk:WilliamJE#GAA_clubs. And follow WP:BRD: don't editwar when your bold change is reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't reply to what I said above and you're fully aware that going to college somewhere doesn't make that person from that place....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE, we categorise ppl by notable association with a place rather than by blood ties or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. The consensus is sportspeople aren't automatically from a place because they went to school there or played for a pro sports team from there. Michael Jordan is associated with Chicago but he isn't Sportspeople from Chicago. Babe Ruth is associated with New York but he isn't Sportspeople from New York City. We don't list per consensus[24] alumni from a school in notable people sections because they went to Foo College in Foo....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE, you continue to misapply to amateur sports the very different situation of professional sports players who play wherever someone gives them a contract for money. And tediously, your replies don't even acknowledge that point.

The guideline you cite relates to to the United States, but Ireland is not part of the United States. Given your refusal to even consider the issues of categorising amateur sport or the local-ties rules of the GAA, I suggest that you restrict your editing to topics which you actually know something about, or where you are your willing to overcome your resistance to learning about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will restrict myself to nothing. You're being insulting again, BHG, and it isn't the first time[25] or your blaming me for something I didn't do[26]. Your behavior is unbecoming of an administrator even if you're not editing in that capacity. Mocking and making attacks on what a person knows or doesn't know are things you shouldn't be doing and you know it. Point out a consensus for your view for college players. I'm waiting and something tells me it will be a long wait....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: enough. Either make a substantive reply to the points made, or go away and drop the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Knolls, Los Angeles[edit]

If you remember, back in March, there was an issue with a user who kept inserting "affluent" into the West Hills, Los Angeles lead paragraph. (Here is a record of the talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Hills,_Los_Angeles#Possible_canvassing )

That user is at it again. Someone had correctly removed the description "low-income" from the Vermont Knolls, Los Angeles lead and within a few hours BeenAroundAwhile had re-inserted it.

I am stunned. This issue was brought up with him and heavily discussed over on the Toluca Lake, Los Angeles Talk page, again on the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles Talk page, and the West Hills, Los Angeles Talk page.

By now, he understands these terms don't belong in the lead; he just rejects the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_19#Request_for_comment that was closed by Robert McClenon as rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general.

What can be done other than policing him on every Los Angeles page? Phatblackmama (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phatblackmama - I haven't researched in detail, but I am inclined to think that a topic-ban of some scope is in order, probably a topic-ban from all articles on communities. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A topic-ban will have to be imposed at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phatblackmama and Robert McClenon:: I have blocked BeenAroundAWhile for 72 hours for disruptive editing, with a warning that recurrence will lead to escalating blocks.

I agree that a topic ban would be appropriate, but don't have the energy right now to start an ANI discussion. However, if either or both of you have the energy to collect the diffs of BeenAroundAWhile's repeated edits of this type and the repeated warnings to stop, the please feel free to either open the ANI discussion yourself ... or alternatively post the diffs here, and I will wrap them up into an ANI post. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he has been blocked, the real question is whether he learns from the block when he comes off block. I haven't researched it. Sometimes editors are less aggressive when coming off block, so give him a chance before starting a new fight with him. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: fair enough. Editors can react post-block in many difft ways (some of which are far from productive), but hopefully this one will will be happy to treat the block a helpful reminder that working within consensus is not optional. We'll see. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, now that he has been blocked once, the alternative to a topic-ban is a longer block, and a longer block is easier because that can be done by one admin, while a topic-ban has to do done at WP:ANI or by ArbCom, unless discretionary sanctions are in effect. Since the questionable editing doesn't have to do with politics, we aren't in discretionary sanctions territory. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has already been warned that future blocks may be longer, so we'll see if he wants to go down that path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Heaney and Bellaghy[edit]

The article on Bellaghy could use a little bit of cleanup in its mentions of Heaney. In consecutive paragraphs it makes mention of Heaney's birth and in different locations. I wasn't sure how to re-word what's there, and thought you might like to take a poke at it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, William. It is a bit jumbled.

I'm currently working my way through a big batch of politicians from Norniron, and don't want to get distracted from that. I'll try to remember this one when I'm done with Stormont. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Heaney, I read he lived in Dublin for many years. He isn't categorized 'People from Dublin (city)' in his article. I also was surprised to notice there are no category 'Writers from Dublin (city)'. I could categorize Heaney as Writers from Dublin (city), and start up a category. With over 1,200 articles categorize 'People from Dublin (city)' I don't see why Writers, plus Scientists and Artists from Dublin (city) wouldn't have a hefty amount of entries if went through the people articles. Lawyers (except I don't know what the difference between a barrister and lawyer), Military personnel, Businesspeople might be other categories to consider. Give me your thoughts....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, William, he lived AFAICR in Sutton. In the inevitable Dublin way, he was known as "famous Seamus" <grin>

As I think we discussed once at CFD I'm not a fan of chopping up ppl-by-city categs by occupation, unless the intersection of occupation+city is of itself relevant. Seamus was a writer who lived in Dublin, but he wasn't a "Dublin writer" in the way that for example James Joyce or Roddy Doyle definitely are. I think that in too many cases such categories are just irrelevant intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and categorized Seamus Heaney as 'People from Dublin (city)'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About films & categorization[edit]

Hi BrownHairGirl, this is not for admin help, but rather for need of your experience in certain areas. More than 10 years ago I tried to see how categorization of film articles had been going on and consolidate some basic lines in WP Films Categorization [27]. Many of the key editors of that time are not very active in Films or even in Wikipedia any longer. I too went through times of scant editing. A few months ago I decided to focus again in Films and see how things have evolved. Luckily I find some very able key members active in the project, and as one explained recently about the project nowadays, the focus is more on having good guidelines. I have been trying to catch up with past discussions, especially in some very revealing CDFs. I tried also to check who did what when, and got some big jolts there. And of course I haven't missed your recent discussions on massive re-categorization going on. This last one has also swept through films categorization, but it was brought to our attention in time to react.

I am currently doing some homework in order to initiate a project-wide disussion, 1. to become aware / clear out / define how we as a project see categorization in our area, 2. to see if we agree on some basic lines to clarify our categorization page, 3. to be able to give consistent advices or arguments to new members or to editors whose work happens to run contrary to ours, and 4. to hopefully improve films categorization to serve better a wider number of users. - There is one area where I am at a loss, however. I have tried to gain some insight into why some editors and fellow gnomes, have been restructuring some areas of the tree. Do they have a plan? If so, how comes and they can't explain what it is but just find short-range justifications for their edits? It is tempting to think there is some agenda somewhere. It would even be helpful to understand what it might be. But it is equally true that many things we do follow some partially conscious impulses of the brain. There is also this passive-agressive behaviour that I have discovered in your comments that is good to know, though I personally would not project it on anyone, just acknowledge it as a possible factor.

Luckily the fact remains that editing Wikipedia is based on some general principles and on consensus about how they apply in various areas with specific needs. A person with a Big Plan which would have been trully great had Wikimedia the means to make it work did give us input in our early categorization efforts. Or I should say he did try to convince us to change everything to fit his plan. We chose a middle path. Why? Consensus. It sounds a bit like "common sense" doesn't it? I think this is the most useful part, both for Wikipedia as a whole, and for each one, as a person. To sum up. Any advice that would help me with making most productive the intended project wide discussion is welcome. I also started gathering some very rudimentary notes, maybe there... In any case, thank you for you attention. Sincerely, Hoverfish Talk 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-stub MPs[edit]

Just saw your list of sub-stub MPs. So I picked one at random - Hew Hamilton Dalrymple - to have a go at. Hopefully it's only now a stub. Catsmeat (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William James (Carlisle MP)[edit]

On 15 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William James (Carlisle MP), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the slave-owner and MP William James received £4,713, equivalent to about £6 million today, as compensation following the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William James (Carlisle MP). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William James (Carlisle MP)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

So Why 12:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Belfast City Council[edit]

Shouldn't this category be be categorized Category:Politicians from Belfast?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: Possibly. It's already under Category:Political office-holders in Belfast, but there's an argument to be made that local councillors are "from" the area they represent. That's in contrast to parliamentarians who may be parachuted in, so cannot be assumed to be "from" an area. In the days of rotten boroughs, they often just bought the seat (possibly through a "borough monger" rather than even dealing with the borough's patron) and never went near the place.

What do do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it as is. Thanks for the education on rotten boroughs. Made me think of 'The Englishman who never went up the hill'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Beach Tennis Club[edit]

I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Newport Beach Tennis Club have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying if there is a category in the United States specifically California about tennis venues and the Newport Beach Tennis Club is a tennis venue in California, United States, that adding the tennis club to the category tennis venues in California while it also matches similar tennis venues in California wasn't being constructive. Gotcha. There is no need to change a category in the sandbox when the change matches the category exactly. The reason the category was developed was to list tennis venues in California, which it is.User:Spatms (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spatms

When posted here, did you not see the big bolded editnotice? It says: To reply to a message I left on your talk page, then please post the reply on your talk page, and use {{ping}} to notify me. I'm sorry if that was unclear.
Take another look at the edit which I reverted: [28]. See if you can spot the problem.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of people by nationality or ethnicity[edit]

Good evening, I hope that with your long WP experience in general and with categories in particular you may be able to help. Do you happen to know if there's any guidelines or precedent to determine whether a people category is meant to contain people by nationality OR by ethnicity in case nationality and ethnicity largely but not fully coincide? I'm asking this question because of this short conversation on the talk page of User:HistoryofIran. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcocapelle

I have never before seen a nationality category made ethnically-exclusive, and the idea makes me shudder: it has nasty echoes of the 1990s Balkans or of 1930s Aryanism.

So in general it's not somewhere I would want to go.

But, it does remind me of the core fuzziness around our "nationality" categories. Effectively, we have conflated the concepts of nationality, citizenship and location into one bundle. I think that such fuzziness is unavoidable if we want to retain categories which are actually useful for navigation. Without it, we generate huge complexity and duplication of categories.

That situation gets even more complex when we go back before the modern systems of population registration and passports. I would be folly to try to impose our contemporary concepts too rigidly on earlier times.

So in the case you mention, I'd say that if the person concerned is of some ethnicity which distinguishes them from other people of that nationality, then deal with it by adding appropriate ethnicity categs rather than by removing nationality categs.

Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Michael Carter article[edit]

Hello,

You have created an article about my great grandfather, Michael Carter - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Carter_(politician)

I have a photograph which can be added to the article but I couldn't see an option to do this as an editor. Is it something you are able to add?

Many thanks,

Badbillbuckleboots (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badbillbuckleboots

A photo would be a great addition to the article.

You need to start by uploading the photo, at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.

I hope that the process is self-explanatory, but if you have any difficulties, pls let me know.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have no idea if this is the correct way to reply to you or not, I've been trying for a while now to see if there is a reply function but wikipedia seems pretty complicated.

I have not edited enough things for it to allow me to upload something and the alternate descriptions of how to upload a picture also seem rather complicated.

Sorry, I think I may struggle. Badbillbuckleboots (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Badbillbuckleboots

You replied just fine. There's nothing fancy about it; just edit the page and type.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a restriction on new users uploading files. It only lasts for 4 days or until you have made 10 edits, so if you do just a little bit of other editing, it will let you do it by the end of the week.

Sorry it's not more immediate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Oh well I'm glad I got the replying thing right anyway.

I've been an editor for a good few months now but I've only edited one thing in that whole time. I don't often spot mistakes so don't have any need to edit stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbillbuckleboots: you have already made 5 edits, so you're half way there. If you like, I can suggest a few easy edits to bring you over the 10-mark.

Then you can upload. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5 edits? Wow - 4 of those must be me editing this comments thread! We could simply continue this discussion and I'd have enough edits in no time ;) Happy to hear alternate suggestions though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbillbuckleboots: yes, it's not a high threshold. The point is just to make things harder for spambots.

OK, as may have noticed, I added an infobox to Michael Carter (politician), but I left blank two fields: date of death & party,

Fill in one of them, then save. Then the other, then save. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for suggesting those edits. I have done those now =] Sorry it took me so long - had a busy week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Badbillbuckleboots

That is good work, but you forgot to link the party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't know how to do that. Wikipedia has to be the most confusing site I've ever used =[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah go on, Badbillbuckleboots. You can do this.

The party is linked in the second sentence of the article. Just copy that markup over to the infobox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems I've actually made enough edits now to upload a picture anyway but the copyright holder can't be contacted to release it as the photographer will be unknown and must have passed away now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pity :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badbillbuckleboots (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]