User talk:BrownHairedGirl: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:33, 6 March 2017

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl's archives

List of archives

+ Cumulative index

BrownHairedGirl is a Wikipedia admin

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello BrownHairedGirl! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Happy New Year!

Dear BrownHairedGirl,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

You're Invited!

Merry Christmas and happy new year

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Talk back

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at 98.113.248.40's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(second response)

Category:Constitutional referendums in Ireland

A category which you created has been nominated for upmerging here. Laurel Lodged (talk)

Page move

Hi. I'd appreciate your thoughts with this page move. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the whole choir of angels singing the Banana Boat Song. That's a bogglefest.

Thanks for the pointer, Lugnuts. On my way to comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia category

Hey BrownHairedGirl, regarding this discussion, I think there is consensus here. I've phrased it as "rename A to B" while User:Zoupan phrased it as "delete A and create B" but the effect would be the same. Zoupan, please correct me if I'm wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: The discussion didn't seem to make that clear. But feel free to make a new nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Less housekeeping needed

Thanks for closing so many discussions! For info, to make your life a bit easier, you no longer have to update the list of open discussions manually, since a bot is updating the list automatically and overwrites any manual changes. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:. Thanks! The backlog was getting terrible, so I decided to have a big run at it.
I just spotted that AnomieBot is updating the list, but thanks for the pointer. And what a useful thing it is, a great timesaver. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism in Albania

Please review the categories (and their sortkeys) of Category:Protestantism in Albania. I suggest that you put Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories on your watchlist, several of the categories listed this week were either created or most recently edited by you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64

In the last fortnight, I have been working my way through Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories and Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links. There was a huge backlog, which is now largely cleared, but clearing it involved creating several thousand new categories because many of the redlinks in the database reports were quite deeply in the caegory tree, and required several layers of parents.

To speed up the job, and minimise errors, I created a series of custom AWB modules to create the categories consistently. However, a few hundred were done manually, and it seems that in a small proportion of those I made an error.

Thanks for spotting the errors. I'll go do a cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another: {{album category}} is not suitable for Category:Death Threat (hip hop group) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado close

Hi BHG

Re the RM at Talk:April_6–8,_2006_tornado_outbreak, there was a small consensus following my vote, for moving to the Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006 format, and I was hoping to ping the other participants to get their thoughts on that. However, I see you've already closed the RM. I'm not sure which way you're closing it, but is it possible we could hold off to give that alternative compromise title a chance? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru

Thanks for your timely message. I was in the process of drafting a close which was going to summarise the discussion as it stood, but it was clear that both sides took a strong view and that any outcome was going to leave a number of editors discontented.

So although it may be a bit odd procedurally, I think that it would be appropriate to re-open and relist the discussion. I have no idea whether your suggestion might sink or swim, and no personal preference either way, but I think that it would be perverse for the discussion to close without a significant alternative being considered.

So re-open-and-relist seems like the least-worst option. And if that's a bit WP:IAR, so be it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you meant "the least worst thing to do" when you said "the last worst thing to do"? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BarrelProof

Oops! I did indeed mean "least worst". That was an embarrassing typo, so thanks for pointing it out. Now fixed.[3] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. It looks like the alternative may be gaining traction. And I don't think a relist is even IAR, it's expressly one of the options if discussion seems to be still ongoing. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the re-opening which I thought might be a bit IAR. But wherever direction this goes, it would be great to see a broad consensus on some solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill–Tonbridge line

Re your move of the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article made per a RM. I accept that your move was done in good faith. However, the RM itself was not made in good faith, being the third one filed in four days. The two previous RMs were closed due to massive opposition to the actual request, and due to mass nominations going on at a single page. This is part of a campaign by Dicklyon to move a great many railway line articles to titles which are not supported by many members of WP:TWP and/or WP:UKT. I would also add, that Dicklyon made no effort to notify any WP of the third RM request. Having recently been at ANI over these moves, his behavious is firmly in WP:IDHT territory now. I will be taking this matter further in due course. As you've unwittingly been caught up in this, I thought would be a courtesy to let you know. I'm not going to reverse your move, but I am appealing to you to reverse it and move-protect the article at its original title pending further discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots, and thanks for your message. Long time no talk, and I hope you are well.

When I closed Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge_line#Requested_move_1_February_2017 I was obviously aware of the previous nominations on that page, which had been withdrawn by the nominator following opposition to grouping so many discussions together. However, the discussion which I closed resolved that problem by nominating only one page. The proposal received 1 support and no opposes, so consensus was clear. Higher participation would have been nice, but since there was no sign of dissent, I chose not to relist.

Given that I moved the page as the outcome of a WP:RM discussion, I would strongly urge you not to revert te move unless the RM outcome is overturned by a community process, which would usually be at WP:MR. Unilaterally overturning an admin closure is rarely regarded as acceptable, but if that is done by an admin who could be regarded as WP:INVOLVED, there could be fireworks.

I am aware of the wider controversy surrounding the page moves and RM proposals made by @Dicklyon, and you may be interested in the discussion above at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#narrow-gauge_stuff (permalink) following a lengthy and hotly-contested RM at Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony#Requested_move_16_January_2017. I closed that one with a suggestion of an RFC to try to resolve these issues centrally, and I offer that same suggestion to you now: try to resolve these issues by centralised discussions rather than by numerous individual RMs all arguing from first principles.

If there had been any indication in the Redhill–Tonbridge RM that such a centralised discussion had taken place or was underway, that might have led to a different closure or a relisting. But I closed the RM as it was. Feel to open a WP:MR, but ...

But I hope you won't mind me offering a generalised observation on the whole situation:

Railways are one of those topic areas which attract meticulous and knowledgeable editors very focused on detail and precision. They produce large sets of well-researched and well-sourced articles, covering whole topic areas in great depth, with meticulous use of cross-linking techniques such as navboxes, line maps, and succession boxes. The insulting depth, breadth and completeness of coverage is a huge and very valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. (Y'all deserve more barnstars for this content creation!)

However, as in other areas where editors tend to be enthusiasts, this attention to detail can some sometimes appear to those uninvolved as being deeply pedantic or even obsessive.

As an outsider to this field I see passions running high over issues non-enthusiasts might well regard as trivia to which the answer could be "whatever". To some extent that's an inevitable gap between those with expertise in a topic and those without, but it seems to me that in some topic areas the intensity of debate comes with a passion which can make disputes hard to resolve. Editors can appear more fixated on defending their passionately-held view than on finding effective ways to resolve disputes.

That is what I am seeing here, in these disputes over minor issues of article-naming. Many good points are made on both sides, by editors who are both well-versed in en.wp policies and guidelines and in the subject areas ... but the dispute-resolution techniques are poor. I may have missed something, but so far, I have not seen any of the editors involved taking steps to a broad resolution of these disputes. That saddens me, because I see so much talent and energy being directed down paths which will not resolve the underlying questions.

May I urge all of you to step back a little from the details and from your passion for particular outcomes, and to focus your energies now on collaboratively arranging a centralised discussion (or set of them) to generate a broad consensus which can be applied (possibly with exceptions) to individual articles? WP:RFC is your friend!

If you like, I would be happy to help interested editors set up whatever RFCs are needed. But if you don't want my help, that's fine too. Good luck to you all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert the move. Been around long enough to know that although I can do something, whether or not I should do it also needs to be considered. Will mull this over for a while before taking any further steps. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: mulling is good (and not just for cheap wine!). My offer of help is open if you want it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Overhight, a highly-contentions issue goes from massive opposition to 1 for, 0 against, and you don't find that suspicious? All the more reason to have (then) made a relisting, and now, a reversion. Personally, I have not added my opinion to these move/hyphenation/downcasing discussions, because (i) as an American I don't feel that I have the expertise to opine on the naming of British railway L/lines, and (ii) I do understand Dicklyon's desire for standardisation. However, in general, experts know what they are talking about, so I would tend to defer to them rather than try to impose an absolute one-size-fits-all dictum. And whether it is intentional subterfuge or not on Dicklyon's part, I have noticed his tendency to open, close, and move around his proposals without adequate notification to other potentially interested editors. Useddenim (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I don't know where you get the "overnight" thing from, but it would be wise to do a little checking of Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge_line#Requested_move_1_February_2017 before casting aspersions. Like take a peek at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redhill%E2%80%93Tonbridge_line&action=history
That discussion was open for 8½ days before I closed it. The only !vote was added[4] 27 hours after the discussion was opened, and nobody else commented until I closed the discussion 7 days later[5].

To be honest, the only thing I find suspicious is that you appear here to make demands of me on the basis of assertions which are clearly not accurate. Why did you do that?

And yes, I do have wider concerns about the way that Dicklyon appears to be a single-purpose hyphenator/de-capilatiser, and about his bulldozer approach. See the rest of this section, and the link to my previous discussion with Dicklyon. But those meta-issues cannot be dealt with at an RM discussion. Better to raise you concerns at WP:ANI.

You are of course free to open a WP:Move review of this closure. But if you want to that, it it would be wise to find much more robust grounds for complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, mea culpa to a bit of hasty editin due to being over-tired. (I've been working double shifts this week: good for the paycheck, bad for the mind.) The ‘overnight’ should actually—if I read things correctly—refer to the withdrawal and then renomination of the page move. But you must admit that it is difficult to comment on something one is unaware of (i.e. not knowing what you don’t know). I’m not trying to cast aspersion, just venting my opinion. Useddenim (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to engage the project in discussion about this; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Move_discussions_in_progress and other subsections around there. Further down the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Mass_RM_request, Mjroots states, I didn't realise that the huge discussion above had some RMs chucked in. It was getting too long to read and from first glance was merely more dead horse beating, which I decided to stay away from. Sounds like he decided to go trout fishing rather than participate, and now he complains that his horse died. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Looooooooooooooooong siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

Dicklyon, I have just written to ask you all to focus on dispute resolution, making similar points to those I made to you before. And now you pop along to make a snarky jibe at one of the people with whom you should be trying to start a dialogue??

Whatever the merits of Mjroots's comment, your comment here appears designed to goad rather than to resolve. Please change course. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's pissing me off more than I can AGF about. He asks me to use RM, then complains when I do. He asks me to break it up into separate RMs, then complains when I do. He asks me to discuss, then complains there's too much discussion and ignores it. All in support of a mythical idea that these titles should be treated as proper names. Definitely trout fishing. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon, as I wrote to you a few weeks ago, the way out of this is three letters: RFC.

Neither of you have done that.

Enough of the personalised complaints about the conduct of others. And waaay more than enough of the emotive terminology ("pissing me off", "tout fishing" , "mythical idea", etc) which serves only to inflame.

It's time for both of you depersonalise this issue, and to start using dispute-resolution procedures to allow a broad community consensus to form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that another RFC on whether we should follow WP:NCCAPS would be welcome or helpful. There's nothing at issue here except Mj's objstructionism. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon, I think that's the third time that I have asked you to take a consensus-building, dispute resolution approach. This latest accusatory reply shows that you have clearly chosen not to follow that path.

If you want to deal out accusations and personalised commentary, feel free to do on on the drama boards (e.g. WP:ANI). But don't post again here unless you are intersted in dispute resolution. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have very much followed your suggestion, opening an RFC on hyphen issue at VPOL, and discussion of the caps issue at the UK trains project. What I'm responding to here is Mjroots's behavior and his accusations of me even when I am following his suggestions, and yours. I feel disappointed in your reaction to the situation. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I don't get it. If there are open RFCs, then why are you pursuing RM discussions at the same time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is on the hyphen issue, where there are mixed opinions. There are not such mixed opinions on the caps issue; just Mjroots; none of the RM discussions are attracting any opposition (with a minor except here and there). Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; I haven't checked the RMs.

But still, you know that there is some consistent opposition. So to minimise drama, have an RFC to settle any issues of principle consensually. There is no rush.

I just checked the hyphen RFC, and saw a comment[6] to you by Johnuniq that Bulldozing opponents might be fun in real life but it is extremely destructive at Wikipedia which relies on volunteers who maintain and build article content. Dashes are not as important as collaboration. That seems to me to be a very important observation, because however much Mjroots may be obstructive, your bulldozing is even more apparent. And Mjroots does contribute substantive content, which I don't see you doing. Please show more respect for that.

Whatever route you take, please remember at all times that referring to other editors as you did above does absolutely nothing to resolve any dispute, and instead makes dialogue much harder. It leaves an unpleasant residue, and however right you may think you are, that sort of confrontational incivility will count heavily against you if this gets to a conduct board.

In the past, I have had significant disagreements with @Mjroots. We put that behind us long ago, partly because we settled the substantive and procedural issues rather than name-calling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistent opposition. Most of the RM discussions are completely unopposed. There is not much pushback on the project page discussion. Mostly, it's all being ignored, as they all see that the decapitalization is going to happen, and they just don't want to be bothered by it, and let me do the work. Even Mjroots was not opposing until he saw this move, and now he's roaring back. For what? Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, please do re-read that comment abut bulldozers. It's very important.

I have driven a bulldozer in real life, on a construction project. (Yes, really. Tho only for 2 days until it broke, and even tho it wasn't in any way my fault, they gave the job to a man when it was fixed. Hey-ho.). It was fun, and it got the job done quickly ... and to be honest, I think that in my early days as an editor I probably tried some bulldozing here in wikipedia too. But after over a decade of editing, I can only agree strongly with Johnuniq that it is deeply destructive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those kind words, BHG. As you know, I do like to concentrate on content work. As well as writing those articles from about 26 January onwards, I also was busy getting another article promoted to GA status. That's why I've not been following the discussion at UKT as closely as perhaps I should have been. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, you mention above your impression that "Dicklyon appears to be a single-purpose hyphenator/de-capilatiser". Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at my user page, my barnstars, my long history of content contributions in many areas. The fact that all that gets noticed (by you) is my gnoming is sad. And what about the moves where I took hyphens out? And the ones where I convert hyphens to dashes (which are the majority of my moves this year, actually, and have attracted only thanks, no pushback or controversy)? And what about last year's big WP:JR cleanup push? And what about my Commons contributions and illustrating articles with my photos? The fact that the rail fans have raised a stink over style should not cause you to denigrate my commitment to contributing to improving Wikipedia content. But I do like the concept of "de-capilatiser". Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, yes "de-capilatiser" is good typo. Let it stand!

I should have qualified my comments to clarify that I was referring to your current edits to rail content. I had noticed that you had created quite a bit content as well, but right now you seem be all over railway articles, where you seem to be focusing solely on stylistic trivia of on hyphens and de-capitalising.[boring spelling returns]

You may be right on what you seek, or you may be wrong. I have just been wearing an admin hat and trying to ensure that consensus decision-making works well, and have deliberately chosen not to form a view on the merits ... but I do hope that both you and those who disagree with you can accept the point repeatedly made at the RFC that either way, it's not very important.

Of course, it's great to polish the small things as well as the big things, but the importance does have quite a bearing on how you go about it. And taking the unimportant things at a slower pace avoids drama.

Right now, I see about 7 open RM discussions which you initiated on railway lines, and several of them are big group nominations. A discussion like that seeks broad community input, but relies in particular on the small set of editors who may have expertise in a particular area to share their expertise about the proposal. Sure, the experts do not WP:OWN the article, but community relies on their input to inform the discussion. Throwing that much at them so quickly is quite a big burden, so a big slow down would help, as would less aggression towards the objectors.

Even if it has to be right, but it doesn't have to be right right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I had the narrow-gauge hyphenation all right a month ago; and while discussing Bermicourt's undoing of it on one article, he went an undid a bunch more. That's why it's occupying so much attention nowadays. Similarly, things were progressing nicely on case fixes in the fall, until Mjroots decided for some reason to raise a stink at ANI. So I slowed down and tried to do it his way. Look where that got us; just more grief from him. Oh, well, I try. And actually, I consider style consistency to be a great and important thing about Wikipedia; don't belittle it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Thornley

Dear BrownHairedGirl, It's been a long time have you managed to collect those sources to move the article? or if you don't mind can you please change the title per the scholarly FWS Craig source you cited. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime (George Gershwin song)

Just thought I should let you know. I have completed disambiguation for this page, and redirect Summertime (song) to Summertime. Thanks TheKaphox T 18:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheKaphox: that was a huge job! Many thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of Girls Trip move request

Hi BrownHairedGirl, thanks for your work. I would like to bring up the result of the move request re: Girl Trip (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Girl_Trip) - The new Red Band trailer for the film came out yesterday, and it clearly reflects the updated title, Girls Trip. I see that the result of the move discussion was that there was no consensus, and I would like to open this back up. The film won't be released until July, and that's a long time to have the wrong title reflected in the page location. Please view the official red band trailer and consider completing this move. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMvBJPgTcDA Luketc (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luketc

I am persuaded that KinoCheck's YouTube channel is a reliable source, so I don't think that's sufficient grounds to reopen. Best to await more coverage in reliable sources to confirm the change of name, and then open a new RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHairedGirl - Sorry for including a link to a third-party channel with the red band trailer. Please see the link for the official trailer from Universal Pictures, using the title Girls Trip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMvDfO5yXYk - 216.4.176.47 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet categories

Why do we have to create all these categories by hand? Why can this process not be automated? Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: I have been muttering the same question, with added expletives. Maybe I should ask at WP:BOTREQ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are they created? Presumably there is a process. Why can't the creating of the category be part of it? Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: It's part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations process. Would you like to ask there why they don't create their categories or get a bot to do? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Rathfelder (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: I was trying to volunteer you for the job <smile> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the internal processes of the organisation quite confusing. I think you understand them much better than I do! Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: I think it's a bit like being a foreign reporter on a civil war, where the rule is that when you think you understand what's going on, you have clearly lost the plot and should get out. <grin>

Anyway ... OK, I'll give it a go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rathfelder

I had a change of plan. Rather than start a long discussion, I simply screen-scraped the whole of Special:WantedCategories, fotmatted it into a category list, grepped the sockpuppet categories, and then did an AWB run to create them all. About 1000 all in. Easy job, and I should have thought of that approach before.

Then I did a similar thing with expatriates: grepped the list, but created the categs manually. And so on with a few other sets.

That all made a big dent in the list, and spurred me to tackle the rest.

I'mm quite encouraged, I sampled about 20 sock categs, and they were all several yeas old, some dating from 2010. So this was a decade's worth of backlog, not a sign of gushing torrent.

Similarly, many of the dafter-looking categs were on long-stale userspace drafts. Again, this is backlog clearance.

I will persevere, and if you also have more energy to keep on tackling this, we can clear the lot before long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at this

Chris H has started another RM discussion at Talk:Trump. I'm tempted to close it as too soon, on top of current consensus at WP:AN leaning towards a moratorium of at least 6 months, but I won't since I'm involved. Should I just leave it be, or what? SkyWarrior 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWarrior: many thanks for the pointer. I have left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another_malformed_Trump_move_request. Let's see what fresh eyes make of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, NeilN closed the malformed RM and stated that they will topic ban Chris. SkyWarrior 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyWarrior: yes, it all seems to have been taken care of. Pity that Chris seemed completely unable to take in the warnings he was given; but he's not the first wont-hear editor.

BTW, do you know that you could have filed an ANI report yourself? It was fine leaving it to me, and I'm happy to have been able help ... but a direct report from you would have gotten a faster response. It would also have displayed your good judgement to a wider audience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a pity Chris turned out that way. Oh well, we tried.

Also, I really didn't think of ANI when I messaged you; I honestly don't know what went through my head when I did, but ANI wasn't one. I'll keep this in mind for future reference. SkyWarrior 02:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara categorization

Why do you think this is a dependency? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: because Western Sahara has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since 1963. See http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

Please will you undo those reverts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. That isn't what makes something a dependency... Morocco views it and administers it as an integral part of its territory (the occupied part which it controls). It has no special autonomy or status in law. In fact, many Moroccan provinces overlap the boundary of Western Sahara and Morocco. There was a Western Sahara Autonomy Plan but it was never enacted. There are dependencies which are not on that list as well as territories on the list which are not dependencies. I'm sorry but you are mistaken here and need to read up on the facts. You are making erroneous edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: So the UN is not a good enough source for you? Sheesh.

If you want a secondary source, see [7].

Autonomy is not a necesary component of a dependnet territory. For example, Overseas France has varying levels of autonomy.

Please can you provide a scholarly source which says that Western Sahara is not a dependent territory? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is really surprising and frankly embarrassing--you know what constitutes reliable sources here. Does the UN page say that it's a dependency...? No, it does not. That is not what constitutes being a dependency. Hong Kong is one and is not on that list, correct? I have actually spoken at that very conference on Non Self-Governing Territories--I know what is on the list and what it means. The UN views the territory as being not decolonized and that's it. The UN has additionally declared it occupied but you wouldn't think of adding the Golan Heights or West Bank to a list of dependent territories because they aren't. Your other source merely says that the "initial list was created by compiling lists of dependent territories submitted by administering states themselves". In 1963, Spanish Sahara was a province of Spain and sent representatives to the Cortes. The onus isn't on me to find sources which say it isn't something (find a scholarly source which says it isn't on Mars!) the onus is on you to find a source which says it is. You have not provided one. Western Sahara is not a dependancy. I'm sorry but you are simply wrong and evidently ignorant about this case. I've been editing here about Western Sahara for 12 years and I've never even seen someone suggest that it's a dependency. Where are you getting this notion? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: so you do not have a source, and you dispute the UN's list.

Here is a scholarly secondary sources which specifically identify Western Sahara as a "dependent territory", using that phrase: Pike, p43

I look fwd to your sources. Since you are so familiar with the topic, I am sure you will have little difficulty finding them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your source claims that the UN recognizes Western Sahara as a dependent territory but it offers no proof that the UN has said this. Can you find any instance of the UN publishing any document that it is a dependent territory? Also, dependent of... whom? Since there is no administering power given on the list of Non Self-Governing Territories, then Western Sahara is a dependency of what exactly? Eagerly awaiting your response. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: This is getting silly. You nitpick at my multiple sources, but have still failed to provide even one source to support your view.

I am quite open to evidence. But so far it's my evidence vs your unsourced assertions. I'm sure you know that's not how issues are decided on en.wp.

So, sources, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire article about the legal status of Western Sahara and no source calls it a dependency. E.g. here. You are asking me to prove a negative like the e.g. I gave above. No scholarly source says that Western Sahara isn't on Mars, so... what exactly? You have to provide a source which says that it is--I don't have to provide one that says it isn't. But even at that, with multitudinous sources talking about Western Sahara's status (and God knows that there are a lot), none of them call it a dependent territory. I have read ISBN 1842773410, ISBN 1588268071, ISBN 0882081527, ISBN 0810855402, and ISBN 0815632193 cover to cover (sometimes multiple times) and I can't recall any of them calling this a dependency. You are simply mistaken and reading something into this UN list which is not there. It is not a dependent territory and the UN is not calling it one. You are wrong. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I have provided a source which says that it is. Pike, above.

Still no source to support your view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is misrepresenting the UN's view--it's just sloppy. I can provide you all kind of sources which talk about Western Sahara's status and lack calling it a dependent territory. I have above. It is not a dependency of Morocco, nor of Spain. As you can see here "Administering Power: Spain terminated its presence in Western Sahara in 1976. See: S/2002/161, para. 7" The UN understands that Spain vacated its responsibility in decolonization and Spain's government considers Western Sahara a former territory. Western Sahara is not a dependency of Spain. It is not a dependency of Morocco. So it's a dependency of what exactly? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source which lacks calling Western Sahara a dependency: The CIA World Factbook has no listing of a "dependency status" for Western Sahara. I hope we're done with this then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that CIA list Gibraltar as a dependent terirory[8], but not Western Sahara[9], who legal status it says is "unresolved".

OK, I'll go with that. The CIA isn't usually my idea of a reliable source, but I have usually found the World Factbook to be good on headline stuff. Not so good on other details, but I'll go with it on this. So let your reverts stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub-Class Months in the 1900s articles has been nominated for discussion

Category:Stub-Class Months in the 1900s articles, 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thai League

Could you retarget the double redirect per Talk:Thai League T1#Requested move 7 February 2017? It might be better as a dab page given other tiers, but it shouldn't be a double redirect. Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TonyBallioni

I'm happy to help, but can you give me more details to save me burrowing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a problem, sorry about that. Just as a quick search, the other Thai Leagues seem to be Thai League 2, Thai League 3, and Thai League 4. I think a dab would probably be better here than just retargeting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Sorry, still not clear. Where is the double redirect? And where do you want the dab? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry again, didn't understand what you were asking. Thai League, which you put under full protection, redirects to Thai Premier League, which based on the RM that just closed redrects to Thai League T1. I was thinking the dab on Thai League makes the most sense, but that might be non-ideal because a significant number of pages link to that redirect as it stands. I think the best solution might be fixing the double redirect to go to Thai League T1, and then I can create a dab at Thai League (disambiguation) and put a hat note at the top of the T1 page. Let me know your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: thanks, that's clear now. Sorry I was too terse to clarify what I needed to know. I think a dab page is best. Then all the link can be fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I created the dab page, and unprotected it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems we misread each other again, I went ahead and created the dab page because of all the Wikilinks to the redirect at Thai League. If you think that the dab is best there, please feel free to get rid of my page via G7. Sorry for all the confusion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: no prob, we have both maybe been a bit hasty. I redirected Thai League (disambiguation) to Thai League. Hope that is ok. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine. Again, thanks for your help with cleaning up after the move :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I have now disambiguated all the links to Thai League. I have also listed the categories for speedy renaming at WP:CFD/S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system move

Sorry for nominating the category together with the page; I thought that was what I was supposed to do. Now I know better. Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 20:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Homunq

No prob. It was good that you spotted that the category was involved too, and that CFD was the place to rename it.

CFD tends to be a bit away from the normal focus of most editors, so WP:C2D escapes the notice of most editors.

There was nothing wrong with what you did ... it's just taht there is a better way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Btw, I responded to your !vote over on Talk:Voting system. Homunq (࿓) 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued participation in this RM (even though we disagree). It occurs to me that this is a relatively central page, and the relevant wikiprojects should probably be alerted with a neutral notice. Could you do the honors, so that I can't be accused of WP:CANVASS? Thanks! Homunq (࿓) 12:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC) ps. So as not to leave the burden on you alone, I'm also making this suggestion to another commenter whose name I forget at the moment.[reply]

At Amakuru's suggestion, I did it myself. So, no need, thanks.

The debate has moved to a new place; "voting method" is no longer an option. I think your opinion would be useful again. Homunq (࿓) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks. Homunq (࿓) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red link user cats

Did you look at the result of your attempt to change to links? Please find a better way if you really have to change. (I didn't count how often I reverted on that user page, but promised myself to revert the same thing only once.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I see it. I will leave it the user if they want to present it differently. My concern remains to remove the clutter from Special:WantedCategories, so that editors can get on with the encyclopedia-building work of fixing redlinked categories. It is disappointing to see that an experienced editor like your good self appears to be dismissive of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see what? That the user seems to report his user name several times, as an expression of himself?? Did you actually look? Please find a better way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: If it concerns you, feel free to find a better way of presenting it.

I will repeat the point which I made above, and which appears to have escaped your attention: y concern remains to remove the clutter from Special:WantedCategories, so that editors can get on with the encyclopedia-building work of fixing redlinked categories without having the list polluted with intentional redlinks. It is disappointing to see that an experienced editor like your good self appears to be dismissive of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you when you said that in an edit summary. I ask again if you actually looked. If that is too hard: you wrote for example Pablo X. IF you really have to do anything, make it Category:Fictional Wikipedia editors in popular culture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you for acknowledging that you heard it. It would be helpful if you showed some sign having understood it, and possibly even making a substantive response to it.

With the greatest possible respect, i have to say that today you that are coming across as a pedantic, nit-picking, obstructive pain in the arse who is trying to demand undue polishing from someone engaged in a wikipedia maintenance exercise which you appear to be more interested in impeding than helping. I know that there is a much better you, so I am sure that is not how you want to appear. Until the real Gerda voice reappears, please can you keep this one off my talk page?

Thanks!

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the fix. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your graceless, pedantic, unassistive obstructionism. I remain hopeful of finding the better Gerda next time we meet. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why remove that category??????

The reason for removing said category, is because the team category (Category:Police United F.C.) is already under Category:Wikipedia categories named after football clubs in Thailand, which is a special category, specifically meant to remove clutter from the base category (Category:Football clubs in Thailand). For an extreme example, see Category:Football clubs in England, imagine 404 sub-categories on the page. Re-adding the base category defeats the purpose. As i don't get it to revert matches, please undo your revert. Thank you. --Ben Stone 21:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Stone sorry, but you have misunderstood the purpose of Category:Wikipedia categories named after football clubs in Thailand. It is a maintenance category, hidden from most readers, and therefore useless for navigation. Those maintenance categories are most certainly not intended to remove any clutter from anywhere else, and since this maintenance category duplicates Category:Football clubs in Thailand,

Category:Football clubs in England is diffused by county into the subcats of Category:Football clubs in England by county. There is no similar diffusion in Thailand, so your removal[10] of Category:Police United F.C. from Category:Football clubs in Thailand removed it from any category navigable by ordinary readers. Not a good idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --Ben Stone 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman_Catholic_lay_ecclesial_movements

Just a quick note to mention that the above category still exists, after you closed the discussion 6 days ago. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: thanks for the pointer. It had been languishing in WP:CFD/W, emptied but not deleted. Now gone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Curaçao people by occupation by city

A tag has been placed on Category:Curaçao people by occupation by city 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 it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Constitutional referendums in Northern Ireland

A tag has been placed on Category:Constitutional referendums in Northern Ireland 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 it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Manx gymnasts

A tag has been placed on Category:Manx gymnasts 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 it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sheriff of Renfrew and Argyll, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Ravenswing 10:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: PROD contested. Lots of sources: see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheriff+of+Renfrew+and+Argyll&tbm=bks. Article needs work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it existed; no one's suggesting otherwise. If there are indeed many sources to this sub-sub-stub of an article which discuss the subject in the significant detail the GNG requires, why not add some? Ravenswing 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you have alerted to me to it, I will add some.
  The page was created as apart of a restructuring of the article on sheriffdoms, and I didn't get as far as I wanted with all of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England -> English category changes et al

Hi, I don't watch category pages so I missed the discussion of this category speed change request. Bits under the digital bridge, but had you considered changing the parent categories so they would be more likely grammatically correct? I'm finding it quite jarring. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jwy/John , and thanks for your msg.
No, I didn't consider changing the many thousands of other template categories. Category:Country templates and its many sub-categories are deliberately non-grammatical, for simplicity. Many of the categories include in a HTML comment a standard note explaining the reason: For consistency, the name of this and similar categories use country names rather than adjectivals, as some country adjectivals are less than straightforward (see Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in the List of adjectival forms of place names.
These categories exist to group pages which are of use only to editors rather than to readers, so there is no need to adopt the more grammatical form. This dates from long before I had anything to do with such categories, and it has always struck me as a handy way of simplifying maintenance for pages which are not "customer-facing". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't completely agree (for example, I occasionally use categories for navigation when I'm in non-editor mode). But my inner Grammar Nazi will get over it. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwy: when you are in non-editor mode, why would you be looking at template categories? The only reason I can see for navigating between templates (rather than between articles) is to edit the templates or apply them to an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point of the _template_ categories... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User categories

Some of the user categories that you created and placed in Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus (actually, all of them) appear to have been category redirected by User:RussBot to that category itself, and are currently sitting in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories. I assume you'd want to revert those, but considering that you created the categories and are much more important and powerful than me, I thought I'd let you know and pass the responsibility to you, so I don't get into an edit war with a bot. spiderjerky (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiderjerky, and thanks very much for doing those reverts. I think I have caught the rest.

This was an idea of a way to bridge the gap between those who want to retain the deleted categories on their userpages, and those doing category maintenance who want the redlinked usercats removed from Special:WantedCategories. My idea was that using hard redirects would turn the categories blue and remove them from the wanted list, without actually creating navigable categories. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories#A_possible_solution_for_zombie_categories.

However, if a bot is just going to change them, then the idea will break fast :( You are rigt that there is no point in either of us getting into an edit war with a bot, I'll go talk to the bot owner.

Thanks again for your help. But just one little point of disagreement. I am an admin, so I probably am more powerful than you (even tho that was not how adminship was intended to be); but I am not more important. Your work maintaining the category system is important, so please don't put yourself down.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderjerky: I followed up by talking to Russbot's owner at User talk:R'n'B#RussBot_and_hard_category_redirects, and Russ promptly came up with a simple solution: use {{Nobots}}. It turned out that there was a glitch in the bot which left it ignoring nobots, but Russ has now fixed it.
So I hope that it has been all been sorted, and that we won't get the drama which would result from a bot editing the user pages. Thanks again for alerting me that this was happening. Without your prompt attention, my attempt at a win-win solution could have gotten very noisy! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I didn't know {{Nobots}} was a thing, so that's helpful. Thank you much! spiderjerky (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems for AnomieBOT

I noticed a number of categories started showing up on my report that tracks usages of nobots, which is a bit unfortunate. It'd be nice if RussBot could be made to avoid these without the sledgehammer that is {{nobots}}. I also note that the categories themselves are still functional, e.g. Category:Editors with a demented sense of humor still shows the two users who use that category. Anomie ⚔ 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomie

Quick first point: yes, the categories are kinda navigable. But only with the use of noredirect, as you did there. An editor who follows the link from the categ list at the bottom of a userpage gets redirected. A further step is needed to see the category listing.

I am sorry about the addition of these pages to yourlist. When Russ suggested {{nobots}}, I didn't consider that it might have any adverse effects. But of course I should have foreseen that since conscientious bot owners like yourself maintain multiple tracking lists, this was something likely to be tracked. And so it is.

I would be reluctant to ask either you or Russ to amend your bot code to cope specifically with this. Partly because I am unsure how durable this still-experimental-kludge will turn out to be, and partly because I am loathe to ask anyone to create the maintenance headaches which arise from hardcoding exceptions.

AFAICs, the latest version of your list[11] consists of the 38 categs which currently redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus, plus 3 categories which appear to have had {{nobots}} for some time: Category:Test for category redirects, Category:X1, and Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags.

That means that >90% of this list is list is now redlink-workaround categories, which I regard as having swamped the tracker list.

I don't want a kukdge-fix for one maintenance headache to simply be displaced into another headache elsewhere. So How big a pain is the pollution of this list? Is it something which you or others monitor routinely to try to clear?

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a pain at all, my concern is a little more philosophical that {{nobots}} shouldn't need to be a permanent part of many pages. Anomie ⚔ 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomie: I agree. This a kludge to allow a kludge to mitigate the damage caused by editors who intentionally create errors in the category system because they won't respect a consensus decision. It's fairly obvious to me where the real solution lies to that, but so far there isn't a consensus to put an end to all of the intentional error-creation. Ultimately it is a social problem.
I don't want this to get in the way of your good work. So if you say that you want the nobots tags to go, then I will support you 100%, and I will take any steps needed to implement that. Just let me know if and when that's what you decide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Your solution seems to have worked. Wanted categories is beginning to be usable.Rathfelder (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, @Rathfelder. I am glad that you feel it it has helped.
  But keep your fingers crossed, because my solution involves a few ugky kludges, and it is fragile. I am not sure that is a long-term solution, but hopefully it will last long enough to give everyone some breathing space to get on with work while something more durable is hammered out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological corpora documents

Hi BHG, IMHO there was consensus to delete the sub-cat Category:Archaeological corpora documents at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Category:Archaeological_corpora, if not the main category. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fl, I will take another look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Not that I care either way, but the discussion caught my eye as I was closing others. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fl, I took another look and have revised[12] my close to retain no consensus on the parent, but delete the subcat.

It's a hard call, because turnout was so poor, but since there were only 2 actual !voters and they both supported deleting the subcat, I think I shoukd have weighed the subcat as a consensus. Oh for the days when a CFD with "only" ten participants looked sparsely-attended compared with the rest of that day's log. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!

I have no objection to the revised outcome, but a point on counting: I count participants who express opinions, rather than !voters – including the nominator. In this case all three participants agreed on deleting the subcat. I'd only exclude a nominator if they stated that they were disinterested; am I wrong on this? – Fayenatic London 14:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fl: you're right. It doesn't necessarily need a specific !vote.

However, I don't weigh them in the same way. I don't attach much weight to unreasoned !votes, and similarly I weigh those who just express opinions with a little caution. There is a clear convention for how editors can specifically and clearly set out their support for a particular action, and if they choose not to do so, then their comments may be indicating that their support is clear ... but on the other hand, the comments may be more along the lines of "if you want to do something like this then here's some points to consider". So I don't have a hard-and-fast rule.

Similarly with the nominator. I think that the nominator's primary role is to set out a proposal on which the community decides, and the weight I attach to their support depends in part on the extent to which their rationale is policy-based and finds support. I have seen nominations which offer almost no rationale, or a rationale which doesn't support the proposed actions; and I have also seen nominations where the rationale is soundly rejected, but editors back the substance of the proposed action on other grounds. So again, no hard-and-fast rule.

Does that make sense?

In the case of the sub-cat here, I was a bit rushed and made an over-hasty judgement without enough weighing. Thanks for persuading me to look again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all makes sense – thanks.

I fully understand about haste/speed, and am grateful for your efforts to clear the recent backlog. Thanks for being willing to revise your close. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

I am dealing with a GA nom. When that is done, I am gone. Well done. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I would be sorry to see you go, but that has to be your decision. However, before you decide that's a reason to go, take a look at the page that it redirects to, to see why I did it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just as an FYI thatI have gone ahead and closed the RM to Electoral system. I had pinged you on my talk page, but I don't think it went through because I forgot to sign it again when I fixed the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm so glad it was closed. The nominator had poured so much unfocused text into it that assessing it all was a big job. Congratulations for taking on! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kilmore-Rathangan hurlers

I don't like creating categories in subjects about which I know nothing. Especially if there is not a corresponding article. Lots of sport article seem to have red categories created by template in a rather unhelpful way. Rathfelder (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: that's a good principle. It is not a good idea to blindly create categories.
But nor is it a great idea to blindly remove them just cos you don't know what it's all about. If it's not your field, and you don't feel inclined to do the research, wouldn't it be better to just leave the redlink in place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Sometimes my removal of a red link prompts somebody to resurrect it and turn it blue. And I do create categories where it is fairly obviously needed - and in particular if there is more than one entry in it. But there are so many red categories it seems more helpful to prune some of them. In particular I have been removing red categories of the form "Icelandic expatriates in Tahiti", and "Icelandic people of Tahitian descent" which are almost entirely generated by articles about footballers. It's clear that if we generate all the possible categories of that kind there would be 40000 of each, and they don't seem very defining. What do you think? Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third Sector

Hi Brown Hair Girl

Please can you remove all previous edits and remove everything about fundraising week so that it no longer comes under COI in your eyes. Please then remove the tags you have on the page. I will not add anything else to this page, I would rather just not have the COI merely because of a sentence change.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works, Alex.Laybourne. Your employers were quite wrong to push you to use en.wp in this way, and if you desist then they may push others in the same way. So the tags should stay as a warning to editors that this article needs to be watched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to my colleagues about this and they are now fully aware of what you have mentioned. Please note the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. Im sure you can understand that we were trying to tell people that Third sector have an annual fundraising week as well as a magazine and nothing more. Its annoying as It was never meant to come across as promotional which was what I was trying to explain to the other editor. I even said can you look at this copy and change it in a way that isn't seen as promotional too which he said no. The only reason for the back and forth was because the current source in regards to section I edited links through to a sponsor that is no long part of the event and wanted to remove that and try and link it somewhere else. We were never trying to promote which is why I am asking for the tags to be removed and the old copy to be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne (talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex.Laybourne, please drop that stuff about the intention was never to promote but simple to inform people that Third sector have an event and are not just a magazine. That's straightforward promotion of your event, and what you say about wanting to change the article because you had a new sponsor massively reinforces your promotional intent. I don't know what makes you think that it is any part of the role of an neutral pint-of-view encyclopedia to assist your employer's sponsorship deals, but you are seriously mistaken about that.

One of the links I posted on your talk page was to Wikipedia:Plain and_simple conflict of interest guide. Did you read it?

Near the top it summarises its main points in big letters. The last of those points is:

Respect the volunteer community's time and avoid making protracted or repeated requests.

Before I intervened, you had rejected the advice of another editor, and edit warred. You posted in response to my note on your talk page, and I replied promptly.

You have had my answer, and nothing you have written persuades me to change it. Please respect that. I think you have had your fair share of my time, which — unlike your employer's time — is unpaid.

If you are not satisfied with my answer, please feel free to raise a complaint at WP:ANI, where other administrators will review my actions. If you do, please do try to remember that you are talking to the volunteer editors of an an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BrownHairedGirl. I have respected your decision and was merely asking for the page to be reset to the original version before this issue arose. There is no need to be extremely defensive and aggressive in your response. Before you 'intervened' I was actually coming on to let the other editor know that his final amendment was fine and just wanted to add one word. I don't believe you had to intervene at all. I wish you well in the future.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from PageantUpdater

Thank you for your great sense of humour making me smile, first time that's happened since I've got re-involved in this. Got a good chuckle out of it - and you're not wrong either. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PageantUpdater: Thanks! A bit of a smile eases some of the tedium of sorting this stuff out.
I am saddened by this saga. The editor concerned is prolific and well-meaning, but periodically seems to experience huge lapses of judgement in how to approach this sort of question. Substantively, I think that there is a good case for the view that the topic-specific notability guidelines have become both far to numerous and far too prescriptive, leading to the creation of far too many articles which will never never progress beyond glorified list entries. But the way to pursue that view is by centralised discussion of the guidelines, rather than flooding AFD with nominations which are going fail under the current guidance. And this particular editor doesn't seem to do well at putting together the sort of case that it is needed for a broader discussion, and also tends to get too heated in such discussions. So I think that they retreat to these AFD fests as the only mechanism which they feel comfortable using.
This sort of thing is easily enough dealt with in face-to-face situations, but I'm not sure how those solutions can be translated into an online environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. JPL seems to believe I get some sort of perverse pleasure out of this but that's far from the case, I'd much rather everything had settled down after the discussion in September but alas it wasn't to be the case. I wish there was more discussion on the ANI about him inflaming the situation by the blanking of attempts to discuss with him on his talk page, even without the "rubbish" edit summary I still find it quite rude and something that hasn't fully been addressed. Can you give me some idea of how long the discussion stays open before a decision is made on the proposal? There are a few oppose votes but it looks like the support votes do outnumber them. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And WP:TROUT the IP for an unfounded complaint."

It wasn't unfounded, and I would bet my bottom dollar that you didn't examine what they said. Of course, who's gonna side with a lowly IP editor? Nobody, ever. User:Nfitz has been on Wikipedia for over 11 years. Is there no obligation to treat newbies better? I mean, I'd cite WP:BITE here, but as the AfD proves, WP policies are a joke and nobody gives a damn about them. Even admins. Thanks for your...er, contribution.184.145.42.19 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment[13] has nothing to do with you being an IP, and everything to do with your conduct in a discussion which I both read from top to to bottom and then sequentially read each diff of the whole discussion.

It seems to me that you have a WP:IDHT problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously have over 500k edits? I'm like a virgin compared to you. How do you stand it? :) Drmies (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Haha! I think it's over 600,000 now. I am still adjusting to the stigma of losing my virginity ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess that was an inappropriate metaphor, haha. Dang girl, you catching up with Koavf! Anyway, I'm pleased you're still around. I'm sure the comments by the above...er, editor are not representative of the editing corps here. Laterz! Drmies (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies no probs about the metaphor. I know it was meant as a joke, and a joke about you, so I had no grounds to take offence.
Editing here is like the rest of life: there's always some people I don't get along with, and some people who don't get along with me. The IP wants to be in the latter group, and that's their choice. Anyway, good to see you still around too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well over 600,000 - see item 14 on this list (updated daily by bot). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

Dear BrownHairedGirl: I am not sure where to go but you. A year ago, you posted this on User BeenAroundAwhile's page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:BeenAroundAWhile#Edit-warring_on_articles_about_districts_of_Los_Angeles). He is now engaged in an edit war and keeps inserting the same word in the West Hills, Los Angeles page. Three different users have deleted it, and despite consensus, despite being reminded of the Sherman Oaks, CA discussion, he keeps adding it back it in. (And this is not even addressing how many other Los Angeles pages he has since added it in to.) What can be done? Phatblackmama (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phatblackmama (and great username BTW!). Thanks for your message.

I have left a note at User talk:BeenAroundAWhile, which I hope will be heeded. But given the long history of this tendentious editing, I have some doubts, esp since @John from Idegon pointed out that there has already been an RFC on the matter.

If this persists, I suggest that you take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navseasoncats v2 and Clubseasoncat

Introducing my two new babies. {{navseasoncats}} has been almost completely rewritten and now

Works regardless of where the year is in the name of the category, so it works on Category:2016 in Canada, Category:Canadian companies established in 2016 and Category:Canadian soccer clubs 2015 season
Copes with both yyyy-yy seasons and single yyyy years (the latter being like the navigation bit of {{Year by category}} without having to enter any year parameters)

{{Clubseasoncat}} is a wrapper for navseasoncats that also adds the categories found on eg Category:Australian soccer clubs 2014–15 season or Category:Republic of Ireland football clubs 2015 season. Again it can cope with seasons and single years, and the different category structure found in the Aussie hierarchy. I've added it to Algeria, Australia and Cape Verde (!) so far and it seems to work. But I'd regard both of them as being on probation for the next few days - I'd encourage you to use them in the meantime but only when you can see the result, they're not ready to be banged out in bulk by AWB (although that's obviously the whole reason for making the effort for them to be intelligent enough to not need parameters, it's a real pain doing bulk {{Year by category}} edits). I've spent way too much time here lately, I really need to get back to real life for a bit but at some point I may tweak navseasoncats a bit more, I'm not entirely happy with how it looks yet. What do you think? I didn't want to go too wide and the idea of doing three seasons either side was that it took up about as much room as ten years. One option I've seen somewhere which I quite like is something like -10•-3•-2•-1•+1•+2+•+3•+10. I'm also debating whether to include the option for a header. And I've just had the thought that it shouldn't be too hard to get it working with decades - in fact it semi-works now, it gives links to individual years as eg 1990s in... gets interpreted as 1990 in... In the long term - I definitely feel the need for a navcenturycats, but that will have to wait for a while! Le Deluge (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is kinda fun. I've got decades working properly (with a cute little twist) - now you can throw Navseasoncats at just about any category that has a year in it (after 999AD...) - it's going to need a new name! So anything from Category:1990s in Ghana to Category:Lists of 1990s films and Category:Novels set in the 1990s can all now have navigation without needing to mess about with parameters. Again you start bumping into the territory of other templates like {{DecadeCategoryNav}}, which maybe have some lessons on presentation, I'm not sure. In a way I don't see them as "competition" - this is more about something that can be easily thrown at potentially thousands of categories really easily with AWB, but people are free to manually add something prettier if they want. Having now done Clubseasoncat, I've now got the basic mechanics for many more wrapper-type templates that could potentially do a bit of customisation of Navseasoncats and add custom categories for any hierarchy that is big enough and predictable enough for it to be worth doing.Le Deluge (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Deluge Wow!!!
That is brilliant. It seems to be pretty much the Swiss Army Knife of by-year/season/decade categories. I think it will be a replacement for hundreds of other templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good topics

Re this change Instead of changing all the talk pages, what I think we need to do is change the template to not generate the category card, which I don't think is of much use. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 I am only aware of one such category being created, but feel free to change the template if you want to. However, it may be possible to use different parameters for the existing template, or create the category as part of whatever series it supposed to be part of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the category. All the good/featured topics have these categories. The red link category only appeared when the article was promoted to Featured Status a few weeks ago. There are as yet no other articles in the Good Topic that are featured. The owner category already exists. I have checked it against other good topics and verified that this is the case. You may find other instances of this; I recommend following the same procedure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hawkeye7.

I wasn't aware of Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories. It looks like a very messy system, but there it is,. Now that I know it exists, I'll try to put other content in there is I find more redlinked categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of closed requested move

Hi BrownHairedGirl, there was this discussion on Talk:Im Yoon-ah#Requested move 10 February 2017, it was going on for three weeks long, and the discussion was clearly heading towards no consensus, so TonyBallioni has closed this discussion and gave a very reasonable comment for the close. But it has been reverted by a user arguing that it is still going on. However, based on all the points stated throughout the discussion, there is definitely no consensus. Please inform me whether it was the right behavior for the revert and whether the discussion should still go on. I have reverted a couple of times and don't want to revert further to violate the rules. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TerryAlex, and thanks for your message.

WP:RMNAC is clear that the closure by @TonyBallioni stands. So as a procedural step, I have reinstated the closure[14], and left a note[15] reminding editors that WP:Move review is available.

The decision by @Sawol to revert the closure[16] was clearly in breach of WP:RMNAC, and their subsequent edit-warring[17][18] against its reinstatement was a further wrong. I trust that Sawol will now let the closure stand, and open a WP:Move review if they wish to challenge the closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pings, here BrownHairedGirl. I am happy to discuss the close with any party on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your reverted edit in the page Template:User egl

In the same moment you reverted my reverted edit, I was saving the missing category page. Now, do you think it's possible to categorize that language Template better? Thank you, --Gloria (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloria : If the category does now exist, then please undo my revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Wikipedian categories created to be humorus or whimsical"

Please explain why you felt that moving the "Idiosyncratic Wikipedians" category to a different name was out of process? Is there a policy that says that categories may only be renamed after a discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: see WP:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces, especially the section on categories. With categories, it is best to propose the move first.
WP:User_categories#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories specifically identifies "Categories that are jokes/nonsense" as a type of category which should not exist. So if you believe that those categories are jokes and/or nonsense, they should all be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Around about the time that category moving became possible (May 2014), there was a thread or two at one of the admin noticeboards and/or village pumps, the outcome of which was that bold category moves were not to be encouraged, since a lot of ancillary work is necessary. Each page in the category must be amended to use the new cat name, because categorisation does not follow redirects and so WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply either. Accordingly it was recommended that all cat renames should be preceded by either a WP:CFD/S or a full WP:CFD. But I don't think that it was written down in policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you for the replies. As Redrose64 points out, the advice at WP:BOLD is non-binding guidance, a sort of "best practices" rather than formal policy. BrownHairedGirl, I do take your point as a good one, that it's more helpful to have a discussion before moving a category instead of doing it boldly, and I will remember that going forward. At the same time, when you undid my change, your edit summary described what I had done as "out of process", which I do not really think it was. (Less-than-ideal process, but not contrary to policy.) I'll point out that "idiosyncratic" can be construed as pejorative towards those editors whose userpages have such categories, and I wanted to use a more AGF category name, something that I will raise again in discussion. Following the link at WP:User categories, I discovered the RfCs on its talkpage, and have commented there. But what I see there tells me that these issues are currently under active discussion, without yet having reached a consensus. (Of course, I do indeed understand that, until a new consensus arises, the existing deprecation of non-serious user categories remains the existing practice. And I do understand and am sympathetic to the issue of red links getting in the way of category maintenance.) But with those RfCs still ongoing, perhaps it's too soon to be taking action in changing user categories. I just discovered what has been going on, and I bet a lot of other editors don't yet know about it yet, and there may well be some strongly negative reactions to changes on user pages as they occur. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number 0

Someone moved Category:0 (number) to Category:0 in Dec (bypassing cfd), and it is now out of sync. Oculi (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: Thank for the pointer. I have just reverted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JPL ANI Discussion... going forward?

Hello BrownHairedGirl, I hope you don't mind me asking but I am generally unfamiliar with the process for ANI closures and there's nothing on the page there to enlighten me. Your proposal is currently sitting at 19-7 support and has been discussed at length for a week now, it's currently the oldest remaining discussion at ANI. How much longer would you expect it to remain open before a decision is made? Also, am I right in assuming the closing admin will consider it on the merits and not the !Votes? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PageantUpdater

There is not a formal process for closing WP:ANI discussions. Unlike RM or XfD, it's left kinda fluid and flexible.

So some discussions are closed within hours, while others remain open for many days. Some never get formally closed, and just drift off into the archives. When a thread floats to the top of ANI, it is more likely to be formally closed, but that is not guaranteed.

If an admin looks at the discussion and sees a consensus forming in a direction which they think is inappropriate, or of they see problems in the nature of that consensus, then they are entitled to not close it. I think that is what is happening here, and after watching the turns in the discussion, I can see why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the response, I appreciate it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get a little clarity on what you mean by "problem with the nature of the consensus"? p b p 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pbp

Some of the situations where I would hesitate to close an ANI discussion include:

Cases where a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS contradicts policy. As an extreme example, there have been cases where aggressive sexual swearing has been endorsed by ANI commentators, in clear contravention of WP:CIVIL. I was to close that sort of discussion, it would have to be as "regardless of the numbers here, you don't get to override policy" ... but in those cases I knew that if I did that, the aggression would then be turned against me. Life is too short to get involved.
Where the balance of the discussion seems to be changing, with later comments taking a different perspective to the earlier ones. That may indicate canvassing, or it may indicate a genuine change of tone as discussion broadens out beyond the initial partisans. Much work involved in interpreting that, and any closure is likely to be hotly contested. The wise admin ventures there only when equipped with a flame-proof suit.
When the discussion reveals one side to be much less measured than first appeared.

That's just a sample of the flavours which can make admins hesitate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Ambassador CFD

Hi. Regarding this CFD, user Regesta continues to create such categories. Maybe a batch CFD? XXN, 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XXN

Well spotted. I think that these could be speedied per WP:C2C. Why don't you give it a go, and link to the Feb 14 CFD as part of your speedy rationale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do this correctly. The message displayed by {{db-xfd|fullvotepage=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Category:Kazakh_ambassador}} says that "...a consensus to delete this page has been reached at a...", but all these categories weren't discussed on that page:) It's only a precedent. XXN, 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XXN: it seems you didn't follow the link to WP:C2C. I meant speedy rename per convention of Category:Lists of ambassadors, not speedy delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories

Hello,

As an Administrator, would you be willing to redirect the above red category to Category:Wikipedians who retain on their userpages categories which have been deleted by consensus?

Apparently, the page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it.

Thanks! Gjs238 (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gjs238.

Quick answer: No, I wouldn't. <smile>

As discussed with @EEng in the RFC on joke categories,[19] I think that we can live with Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page as one remaining relic of the previous forest of redlinks, and Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories is just its twin.

We have found a way of turning the others blue without fully restoring them, and that has removed mountains of crud from Special:WantedCategories. If these are all that remains, then we toilers at the redlink coalface have much to celebrate about our task being eased. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your accommodating this one relic. Just so you know, if there really had been no way to accommodate all the other fun categories without substantively complexifying serious project work, I certainly would have supported eliminating them. E Eng 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I recently said above, I do not believe that the community consensus has been settled about the approach used, and I expect that there will be further discussion. But, that said, I too am happy to see solutions that make life easier for editors inside or outside the coalface. We just need to make sure that we are respecting everyone else too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I think a lot of stuff remains unsettled on this, and I agree that there will need to be further discussion. Some elements of a solution are starting to emerge, but it remains fragile. For example, Anomie raised some concerns above (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Problems_for_AnomieBOT about the use of {{nobots}}. Some editors such as EEng are very constructive, but while some other editors seem to have backed off (at least for now) their hardline view that they are entitled to create redlinks in their own userspace without regard to the consequences elsewhere, others are still entrenched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 611: / Line 611: @@
 ::I appreciate your accommodating this one relic. Just so you know, if there really had been no way to accommodate all the other fun categories without substantively complexifying serious project work, I certainly would have supported eliminating them. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 :::As I recently said [[#"Category:Wikipedian categories created to be humorus or whimsical"|above]], I do not believe that the community consensus has been settled about the approach used, and I expect that there will be further discussion. But, that said, I too am happy to see solutions that make life easier for editors inside or outside the coalface. We just need to make sure that we are respecting everyone else too. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
+::::@[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]]: I think a lot of stuff remains unsettled on this, and I agree that there will need to be further discussion.  Some elements of a solution are starting to emerge, but it remains fragile.  For example, {{u|Anomie}} raised some concerns above (see [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Problems_for_AnomieBOT]] about the use of {{tl|nobots}}. Some editors such as EEng are very constructive, but while some other editors seem to have backed off (at least for now) their hardline view that they are entitled to create redlinks in their own userspace without regard to the consequences elsewhere, others are still entrenched.  --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)