User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 042

click here to leave a new
message for BrownHairedGirl

List of archives

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Please note your signature is broken and I had to check the edit history of my talk page to see who had left me a message. Tim! (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim!: sorry, I typed one ~ too many. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tim! (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Monastic houses of England[edit]

Template:Monastic houses of England has been nominated for merging with Template:Map link to lists of monastic houses in England by county. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years in the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Am mystified by your closing remarks on the CFM. Out of the multiple nominations, I made an error in one of then that you spotted. Good for you. But no consensus? There was 1 dissenting voice who didn't elaborate on his own rationale - a rationale that runs counter to every other such nom in the last year. Please explain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: The first sentence of your nominator's rationale at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 29#Years_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire was simply false. The headline of the nom was wrong, and the first cat listed was wrong.

Nobody in the discussion noted these problems, so the discussion was about a misleading proposal which did not do what you claimed it would do. As such it could not be counted as a valid consensus.

So there is no mystery; simply an error which invalidated the discussion, regardless of the arguments made by participnats. As I noted in my closure, a new nomination which actually did what was claimed might have a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleted

@Laurel Lodged: this isn't complicated. You made an unfortunate error which had the unintended effect of the misrepresenting the whole proposal.

No big deal; make another nom, and check it carefully, as I invited you to do in the close, without any personal comment.

As to pity ... the only pity needed is for someone whose response to an admin trying to do the right thing is yet another personal attack. You have a history of this, and I suggest you retract. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could have brought the error to my attention in a quiet way. I could then have deleted the offending line, as happens many times in many noms. You chose not to. Why? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: You could have asked that uestion instead o making a personal attack (which you repeated in spirit at CFD: [1]).

If you asked, the answer would have been that the discussion had already run its course on the basis of the factually incorrect rationale, so it was too late to fix it. It might have been different if the prob had been spotted earlier, but sadly it wasn't.

Now, this is my last warning to you to retract you personal attacks. I've had enough of your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown[edit]

I withdrew the RM and am thinking of going with a multi-choice version, using a table. What do you think?

Draft: Talk:Sarah Jane Brown/table

Thanks! --В²C ☎ 23:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the direction this is going, @В²C. Much better to put all options on the table.

Ideally we'd have some sort of more sophisticated system with weighting or single transferable vote (STV)-style preferential ranking. Contradicts WP:NOTVOTE, but then so did the RM which moved the page to the daft "Sarah Jane Brown".

What about adding in the wild card, moving the page to the undabbed "Sarah Brown"? Yes, it's not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I can see a case that it may be the least worst solution. Maybe do phase 1 as making a list of options? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a discussion section there - we can easily add, or delete options as part of that. I have a sense we're pretty close. Do we need both "wife of" and "spouse of", for example? I think so, because some might think "wife of" is offensive but "spouse of" is not because it's gender neutral, but on the other hand "wife of" is what RS use... --В²C ☎ 00:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tag[edit]

Hey. I needed an impartial, experienced wikiuser to deal with a maintenance tag on the page of Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat). The tag concerned is about notability. The subject meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines as far as I reviewed them as the subject holds office of national importance, being head of the national flag carrier and the highest-ranked civil servant of the country. More than 20 (primary and secondary) citations are already attached of well-known newspapers, magazines as well as government websites. I don't really know why the maintenance tag was inserted in the first place given the great number of references quoted, but I need an experienced wikiuser to look into it and if you agree with my arguments and see fit to remove it, I shall be grateful. (Regent007 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Re:CFD[edit]

Hi BHG -

There's a problem with this CfD closure - the items in the category don't belong in either of the proposed new categories. They're flag design features, and need a subcategory for that rather than being lumped directly into wither of the suggested targets, where they would be distinctly out of place. That's why the original proposal was for a rename of category, not a merger. If the current category is to go, it should go to a renamed category, not to a merge, which is highly inappropriate (as I would have pointed out had those involved in the original discussion been notified when the discussion was relisted!) Grutness...wha? 04:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved everything that was in the category to Category:Flags by design, which was a far more effective target. I hope that's OK. Grutness...wha? 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: No, it's not OK. That wasn't the close. Please revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS the relisting was noted at the original discussion,[2] and by tagging the category ... so anyone who was following either the discussion or the category was notified. If they chose not to follow the relisted discussion, that was their choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The people who had been involved in the initial discussion should have been notified - when I relist a category, I do what should be done (and what most others do) and leave a note on the talk pages of those involved. I did, however, move all the articles to one of the two targets listed in the CfD discussion, per CfD closure. In doing so, I have completed the CfD process appropriately. A while later, I recategorised them to appropriate categories, per standard Wikipedia practice. I believe that in doing so, I have fulfilled both the letter of the CfD decision and best practice as regards the final location of the articles. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: in twelve years of CfD discussions, I don't recall ever receiving a relisting notification. I have seen nothing in any guideline recommending it, nor has anyone else ever suggested it to me. I see no evidence that this is what anyone else does, let alone, as you claim, what most others do.

I do not believe it is necessary. Participants in an XfD receive no special notification when a new comment or !vo!e is added to a discussion; they have to monitor the page. Anyone watching the discussion will have seen the relisting, in which the new location was unpiped section-linked both on the page and in the edit summary[3].

You claim that you move all the articles to one of the two targets listed in the CfD discussion, per CfD closure. In doing so, I have completed the CfD process appropriately. A while later, I recategorised them to appropriate categories.

That is no mere misrepresentation; it is an outright lie, a deliberate falsehood.

Your contribs list shows what actually happened. The actual sequence of events was:

00:44 You posted here[4] about your concerns about the close.
00:44–0:52 you recategorised a series of articles directly from Category:Flag design terms to Category:Flags by design, using HotCat
00:54 you posted here[5] to say that was what you had done. All truthful so far
07:08 I responded here[6], asking you to revert
07:15 I added a PS[7] about the relisting
10:44 You posted here [8] to say you would implement the close, and that when sole time has passed, I will recategorise them in appropriate categories
10:45–10:50 You made a series of 26 edits in which you added 13 pages to Category:Vexillology, and then without delay removed them from the category
10:59 You edited[9] your post here of 10:44 to read I did, however, move all the articles to one of the two targets listed in the CfD discussion, per CfD closure. In doing so, I have completed the CfD process appropriately. A while later, I recategorised them to appropriate categories, per standard Wikipedia practice.

04:50[10]: removed Category:Flag design terms; added Category:Flags by design
10:46[11]: added Category:Vexillology using HotCat) (undo | thank)
10:49[12]: removed Category:Vexillology

So your claim that A while later, I recategorised them to appropriate categories is a lie. You knew it was a lie, because you removed earlier text which honestly described what you did.

You used your admin tools to delete the emptied category (and argue that reversion would be procedurally wrong), so this saga counts as admin action by you. WP:ADMINCOND says that "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors". Telling lies is no part of courtesy and civility. Shame on you.

Look, this was a difficult close where I tried to do the least worst thing with a messy discussion, without imposing my own analysis. I was uncertain about the outcome, and half-expected questions about it, so your own initial post could have been the basis for a sensible discussion. Maybe we would have ended up where you wanted.

But instead of having the courtesy to wait for my substantive reply, you a) implemented your own preference; b) posted a load of smokescreening nonsense about relisting practises; c) deliberately lied about what you have done.

If you have any integrity, you will hand in your admin bit. But whether or not you do that, please do not post here again unless it is at least to retract your lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/United States Courthouse (Austin, Texas, 2012)[edit]

BrownHairedGirl, there has been a response to your review. Can you please return to continue? If this is not possible, I'll call for a new reviewer to continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @BlueMoonset. I have responded on the DYK page[13]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Northern Ireland Categories[edit]

I've noticed they( For instance Category:1974 in Northern Ireland) are put in subcategory 'Year in Ireland'. That appears to be incorrect for obvious reasons (The comparison would be Years in Hong Kong not being a subcategory of Year in China before 1997) but I want to confirm it with you before doing up to 100 category edits. Please write back....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...William, this categorization follows the consensus at WP:IRE-CATS. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC) (TPS)[reply]

Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: thanks for asking. That explanation from @Fayenatic london is spot on.

If you look a little further, you will see that Category:Ireland is a parent of both Category:Republic of Ireland and Category:Northern Ireland; and that Category:Northern Ireland is subcat of both Category:Ireland and Category:United Kingdom. This structure continues down through all subcats.

It is always important to look carefully at the wider category tree before considering any such changes. Clues in this case would include the fact that Category:1974 in Northern Ireland etc is categorised via Template:Northern Ireland by year, which has been stable for years.

It's also important to remember that the politics and history of the island of Ireland are complicated, and don't fit neatly into other concepts of what's a nation-state and what isn't. The UK is complex too, because it's a rare example of a country of countries; and Northern Ireland is the intersection of those 2 complexities. In some respects Northern Ireland is simply a part of the UK, but in other respects it is more like a case of joint sovereignty. The island was united for many centuries until 1921, and many things continue to be run on an all-Ireland basis, including most sport and all religion. And everyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled is entitled to citizenship of the Republic of Ireland.

There are huge entrenched divisions around many issues, but the current structure of Irish categories is a stable consensus which has been hashed out over more than a decade of (often heated) debate on en.wp, reflecting the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Big changes like the one you considered should be proposed at WP:IECOLL, and the discussion notified at both WP:IE and WP:NIR. It's also worth bearing in mind that the whole thing is on the edge of WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES, where sanctions are applicable, so much caution is needed.

Anywy, thanks again for asking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris (UK nuclear programme)[edit]

Somehow, the category Category:Trident (UK nuclear programme) has been renamed without a CfD request. Now I can't raise one, leaving the Polaris article not matching. What can we do now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I explained it at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_13#Category:UK_Polaris_programme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't do it because WP:RM#CM is unsatisfactory. I raised a request, but now we have the two categories not matching, and no guarantee that they ever will. Main articles don't have to match the category, but I wanted the categories to match each other. Is there some way to appeal the move so I can raise a CfD request? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm sorry, but I am running out of ways to explain this you, and you seem to be massively over-complicating very simple things. After you ignored the criteria at WP:CFDS and made bizarre attempt to use WP:Categories for discussion to rename an article, I'm concerned that I may be discussing this with you at a bad time for you to absorb new info. So I am not going to write a long essay, I'll just leave you with a few bullet points:

Categories nearly always match head articles. Not always, but nearly always. That's why WP:C2D is a speedy criterion
It is possible that you may get consensus to rename a category so it doesn't match its head article, but unlikely. If you want to try that, just see WP:CFD#HOWTO. I'd estimate your chances of success at less than 5%, but it's your choice.
You're much more likely to get the category renamed to match the article, so best to start by renaming the article, and then speedy the article to match. That's why I pointed you to WP:RM#CM, which you say is unsatisfactory (why?). But it's my last suggestion.

Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UPSL season AfD[edit]

my closure of WP:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season is now the subject of a deletion review at WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14#2018_UPSL_Season'. Any further comments should be posted at the deletion review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm confused.... The keep !voters outnumbered the delete voters, and they had an argument much better grounded in policy, yet you still closed it as delete? Please tell me this was a mistake of some sort, since I really don't see how you can close as delete with that logic. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: see the explanation of my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 UPSL season. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I'm still confused. You acknowledge the keep voters outnumbered the delete voters, and say their arguments were much better grounded in policy (which I suppose is debatable), yet you closed as delete. Looking at your full comments, perhaps you meant to say the delete !voters were better grounded in policy? That's not what you said, though. Smartyllama (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Ooops! Copyedit error. As you guessed, I meant to write the "delete" !voters offered a reason much better-founded in policy and evidence. Now corrected[14] ... and thanks for spotting it.

I could have done a detailed analysis of the flaws in the keep votes, but I hoped that a summary would suffice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused by this as well. A bunch of sources were cited in the discussion, and many of those sources specifically discussed and analyzed the upcoming 2018 season. Were you aware of those links? Bashum104 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104: I didn't see links discussing the 2018 season of the league, just the 2018 season of individual teams. If I missed something, please identify it. But no new evidence please, we're past that stage. Just RSs from the AfD which are actually about the 2018 UPSL season as a whole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you discuss a sports season other than through the lens of its teams? That seems like a mighty precise judgment call, especially since there appeared to be a consensus that the article was worth keeping. I'd also add that even if the season lacked notability now, there will shortly be more coverage of it as schedules are announced, games begin, etc. So now we're just in the situation where someone will create the article in a few weeks/months once this coverage exists. Bashum104 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104: If and when notability is established in the future, the article can be re-created. But WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and nobody offered any evidence of notability of previous seasons (which might have raised such predictions beyond speculation).

Your claim of a consensus that the article was worth keeping is based on a headcount. But WP:NOTVOTE; an XfD closer's job is to weigh consensus by assessing arguments against policy, and many of the keep arguments were based on an assumption of inherited notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - I neglected to save the content of that page before it was deleted. Given that there are no alleged legal or copyright issues with the content, would you be willing to share it with me so that I can maintain it on my userpage? Bashum104 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104: I'd be v happy to WP:USERFY, if policy allows. It's a while since I did it, so gimme an hour or so to check up after I've eaten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104: userfied to User:Bashum104/2018 UPSL season. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing here because based on my review of the AfD I believe you came to the wrong conclusion regarding the deletion of the 2018 UPSL Season page. You claim the sources included established notability for several of the clubs, but those sources also show notability for the 2018 UPSL Season, which should be considered an ongoing event held by a notable entity (the UPSL). You instead took the position of the two votes for deletion in spite of numerous sources discussing the ongoing 2018 UPSL Season. I respect your decision regarding WP:NOTVOTE, but one no vote was for WP:OSE reasons (an argument for keeping the league in), and the other vote for deletion was the nominator, who did heavy canvassing. I would kindly ask you to reconsider your decision on this deletion request. (Per WP:OSE, national fourth-tier U.S. leagues typically have season articles. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1956–57_Bahraini_Premier_League and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014–15_Albanian_Second_Division for the league seasons are events and not WP:NSEASON conclusion, and using WP:OSE for inclusion of the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014–15_MNZ_Celje_Leagues_and_cup for a league season which was deleted per WP:GNG for not being notable.) SportingFlyer (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the UPSL is not the fourth tier of US soccer. There is no officially sanctioned leagues below the third tier. As a result, notability for leagues has to be established based on the project's notability guidelines i.e. All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable. Additionally under WP:FOOTYN: All other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. The page could definitely benefit from having a more concrete guideline for seasons in particular, but note that the UPSL does not receive automatic entry into the domestic cup, whereas leagues like the NPSL and PDL do. Additionally, rather than disputing my actual arguments, you dismissed them as "heavy canvassing." How about addressing the issues of WP:ROUTINE and WP:INHERIT that the article relied heavily on? How about the lack of significant coverage regarding the league season itself rather than sources talking about individual teams? You can't just aggregate them together and assume notability from that. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I have written a lot already, so I'm just going to reply here with a few bullet points:

the sources included established notability for several of the clubs, but those sources also show notability for the 2018 UPSL Season.
I saw no such sources; please identify them.
the 2018 UPSL Season, which should be considered an ongoing event held by a notable entity (the UPSL).
See WP:NOTINHERITED
the nominator, who did heavy canvassing.
At the AfD no complaint was made of WP:CANVASSing, and I saw no sign of it. You now allege that @Jay eyem engaged in canvassing. That's a serious allegation of misconduct, so please either present the evidence to support that charge, or withdraw it and apologise to Jay eyem.
Per WP:OSE, national fourth-tier U.S. leagues typically have season articles.
You seem confused about the meaning of WP:OSE. I suggest you re-read it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

What type of source would you need to show notability for the 2018 UPSL Season? What's wrong with sources like [15] [16] or even [17], showing where the Lincoln team will play during the 2018 UPSL Season? Articles similar to [18] probably haven't been written yet, but this is also not WP:TOOSOON as 2018 will be the current season, and multiple teams have announced their participation in the event.
I believe our disagreement here regards the source articles: WP:NOTINHERITED does apply if you think no articles exist to support the fact the 2018 UPSL Season will take place. I obviously disagree, and I believe the consensus disagreed as well. Note I did not vote in the AfD.
I did not use the word canvassing properly in the Wikipedia context and will do better in the future. However, that does not change the fact the nominator did not gain a consensus to delete the article.
I'm familiar with WP:OSE, and while it doesn't support the creation of this article on its own, seasons for national amateur soccer leagues in the U.S. are generally notable. This one is no different. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: In your point 2 you write WP:NOTINHERITED does apply if you think no articles exist to support the fact the 2018 UPSL Season will take place. As you should well know, the issue here is not whether the season exists, but whether it meets WP:GNG. Arguments like that are timewasting silliness, and I'm not playing.

In your point 4, you say you are familiar with WP:OSE, but then you go onto make a case which breaches WP:OSE.

In your point 3, you acknowledge that your allegation of WP:CANVASSing was wholly unfounded, but you make not the slightest hint of apology gto the editor who you maligned.

Enough. Please do not post again in this discussion. WP:DRV is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the DRV below and will leave you alone! Sorry we couldn't come to a better agreement. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104: I think you need to explain your logic for overriding a 7-2 majority. As a general principle, sports teams play games against other teams. Very few teams play a freelance schedule, and even if they do, there is a destination, a championship of an overall entity. Most teams play in a league with an organized schedule to take them to that championship within each and every season. None of those exist without the others. How can you separate the league from that chain when virtually every source refers to the teams the articles are about, are going to play in this season of this league? Trackinfo (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: It's not complicated. An article about the league season would take an overview. It would discuss the league as a whole and it would discuss multiple teams rather than focusing on one or 2 teams. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bashum104:@SportingFlyer:@Smartyllama:. It is already extraordinary for anybody to follow an AfD back to the closer. We have four people who have questioned your decision, where your one opinion chose to override the consensus majority that the sources DID cover the league . . . cumulatively as I put it. Yes, you have the NOM who used WP:BLUD tactics throughout the process and one Wikipedia oligarch who agree with you. Are some people's opinion more equal than others? That is apparently true here. So if the others agree, I think this needs to go to a deletion review unless you choose to reverse your opinion now. Trackinfo (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: WP:NOTVOTE. If you want to continue to argue that this should have been closed as a headcount, you know where DRV is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: I would agree. Take it to DRV. The closure is obviously incorrect given the sources and consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

DYK for List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland[edit]

On 14 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there was a 58-year gap between the terms of office of the first and second women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on this list. I hope you will nominate it for WP:FLC. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Skr15081997. Yes, I will take it to FLC as soon as it's off the front page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a good model for women ministers' list of other countries too. --Skr15081997 (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cats for Oldham Evening Chronicle[edit]

Hi, any idea how best to treat the relaunch of the Oldham Evening Chronicle? I am in particular concerned about the categories, which is right up your street. I don't think a separate article is justified at present. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of women members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland[edit]

On 15 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of women members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the longest-serving woman in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland was also the grandmother of two prime ministers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of women members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of women members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed category discussions on the cats' talkpages[edit]

Hi BHG, and thanks for your guidance in my perilous quest to slow the devolution of the English language. In the case of something like the Luxembourgish/-ian/-eois question, it seems to me that it might be useful to copy closed or withdrawn category discussions to the talkpages of the cats in question, or to put links to the closed/withdrawn discussions there. That would be helpful to someone like me, who had no idea that the problem had already been discussed twice. Do you know if this has ever been considered as a general practice? Eric ^talk 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: it's recommended practice with full CfD discussions, tho sadly not always implemented. There is no guidance not to do it with speedies, but I have never seen it done, 'cos the effort is usually disproportional; remember speedies, are not supposed to be discussions. Feel free to do it if you want to, but I don't think it's needed.

When you proposed speedying Category:French people of Luxembourgian descent, I immediately checked whether it was part of a series. Yes: Category:People of Luxembourgian descent. That took me to the top of the tree at Category:Luxembourgian people, where I looked at the page history and and the talk page. Sure enough, Category talk:Luxembourgian people had notices about the two previous CfDs, which is what I posted in our discussion at speedy.

So I think the main thing is to remind people to go to the top of the tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wish I'd gone to the top at first and found those! Thanks. Eric ^talk 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FLC[edit]

Hi, can you please leave your comments at my ongoing nomination? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of reverting your edits[edit]

Hi. Long time no speak. Silence over. I have mentioned you at my talk page, in regard to this reverting of your edit.Mais oui! (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer, @Mais oui!:. Nice to her from you again.

I thought such silliness had stopped long ago. If this persists, we'll need to set up an rfc or something. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not the world’s most sociable chap, so don’t take my silence personally. I do frequently see your edits, but usually maintain radio silence.

I think it was a major mistake removing Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs from that Talk page. It used to be a permanent feature, many years ago, and stopped a lot of this nonsense. When people see that the Queen, the prime minister, and a whole host of authoritative sources routinely refer to England, Wales and Scotland as countries and nations then they are less willing to pursue their own personal point of view. The nation/country parent articles have even been removed from topics that simply lack a UK perspective, eg. there is no such thing as the “Catholic Church in the United Kingdom” (organised on an E+W, S and all-Ireland basis), or the separate education systems (never has been a unified system), ditto law, religion, sport, health etc where the “UK” element is minute in comparison to the respective national organisations. All common sense has been thrown out the window. The categorisation system is meant to be *useful*, not some pedantic tool to keep rebels at bay. Eg. Scotland plays lawn bowls, badminton, soccer, rugby union, curling, golf, squash, cricket etc, etc, etc, but it would be entirely bonkers for Category:Sport in Scotland to be in the Sport by country cats, wouldn’t it? I fear that we have already lost a huge number of competent and enthusiastic contributors because of such daftness. I cannot help but get the feeling that the true objective is to get rid of me too. Mais oui! (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tim! (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People vs. Sportspeople[edit]

Re: [19], why would we merge articles to Category:American people of Italian descent and not Category:American sportspeople of Italian descent? I disagreed with merging at all (since they are almost all based on conjecture) but I don't understand the rationale for this. Can you explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Namiba

As a closer, I have to close the discussion which actually happened, not the one which people might like to have happened.

You made a nomination which failed to address the issue of merger. You could have explained in the nomination why you preferred deletion, but you chose not to do. (It's an oversight common to some of your other recent nominations).

The normal response to a non-notable intersection is to merge to the components. So when you proposed outright deletion, that issue was inevitably going to be raised.

As a result, the discussion focused on whether to merge, not how. When you replied to @Oculi, you could have added something like "if there is a merge, make it to Category:American sportspeople of Italian descent rather than Category:American people of Italian descent". But you didn't.

Instead you just said most articles make no reference to the subjects' Italian ancestry ... and @Marcocapelle addressed that point persuasively by saying merge where ancestry is proven.

That all made the close v straightfwd: 2 editors supporting merge, and one preferring deletion for reasons which had been persuasively addressed.

So no other close was possible, without a supervote by the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worries about a block/dispute[edit]

Hi, I've never really been involved in any blocking or edit war stuff, so I don't really know where to go about this, but I just happened to notice two users, one new and one with a couple years experience, who had gotten into edit wars on multiple articles about different cartoons, which resulted in the older one reporting the new user for vandalism, and an admin then blocked them. The only problem is, the block seemed a bit hasty as I don't see how the new user was being a vandal, as all their edits seemed to be in good faith, and the one who was doing the reverting was not the one who was blocked (though in neither case was it 3 times). Especially as they are a new editor who was never warned at all. I'm just worried because to me it seemed like one or both might just be kids (they might not, but just based on the articles they were both editing), so I was worried about what seemed to me to be bullying, except one side had more wiki experience. I just don't know what to do about it, since I'm not really involved, but the whole situation just made me worried and uncomfortable and I didn't want to just ignore it especially if there are potentially kids involved. ElfLady64 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ElfLady64

that sounds worth a closer look.

Unfortunately I can't do it, 'cos I gotta sign off now. So I suggest you repost at WP:ANI, and add some identifying details and links.

Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Good morning, it's not entirely clear how you are closing this discussion, just mentioning "closing" is probably not enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marcocapelle

Oops. That was just a holding notice while I wrote the actual close ... from which I got sidetracked.

I'll get back to it now. Thanks for the reminder.

BTW, would you feel able to do some CfD closes? There's till a bit of a backlog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wowie![edit]

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		I hereby give you this award in recognition of your diligent and brilliant contributions to improve the display of templates in Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, @Fayenatic. That's v kind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

! Ooh, that one's badass. I'm envious! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd never seen this one before. It's way more ipressive than the usual sheriff-badge style barnstars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peep[edit]

Sorry if that came off over-argumentative over at CfD/SPEEDY. I forget sometimes this medium lacks voice tone, facial expression, etc. It looked gruffer than intended when I re-read it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No prob at all @SMcCandlish. I didn't sense any gruffness, just a disagreement which you reasoned well, as ever.

But thanks v much for checking that all is OK. V kind of you.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One likes to be mindful (especially with people one has periodic disagreements with over such stuff; it can seem habitual or grudgey if not managed). I'm in "violent agreement" with you on the TERF category stuff, though. One at least two of those categories the "p.c." WP:IDONTLIKEIT !voting is really getting out of hand. Just flat-out source denialism by people who really, really know better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Yes, the TERF category thing is more blatant IDONTLIKEIT than I have ever seen in 12 years at CfD. I guess that's why nobody has stepped up to close those discussions, because if they close on the basis of policy they will be flamed. But I've learnt to be a bit sanguine about these things; they usually come right in the end, tho sometimes only after painfully exhausting every other option

And you're right about the risk of debate being misunderstood as hostility. I've had two such situations lead to fallings-out over misunderstood intent, and I wish I had done some courtesy calls as you so wisely did here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've got three editors with whom I share a lot of interests and with whom I agree on most things, but because of arguments from ca. 4 to 12 years ago, they generally approach me as "enemies". Similarly with someone whom I have near-zero interaction except on one issue (rarely, like annually or less), who grudges at me over something also dating back over a decade, despite us doing a lengthy and seemingly amicable dispute resolution back when (the positive results of which immediately dissipated). Some people just seem temperamentally disinclined to let stuff go, and appear to assume you're out to stick it to them. Maybe there's a "once bitten, twice shy" gene or something. Not sure any of these will be resolvable, though I keep trying (at least with the first three; the fourth I've written off as a lost cause). I'm kind of the opposite; someone can flame me half to death, and a month later I won't even remember who it was. It takes a sustained and vindictive pattern of hostility to stick on my radar. I don't even remember the username of the admin who issued me a wrongful block that AN later vacated retroactively. I just have a terrible memory for usernames and have kind of cultivated the lapse as a drama-avoidance technique (weakness → strength). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Europe and Asia[edit]

Good evening, and thanks for closing the discussion! The only thing to worry about is the years starting in 962. Part of the content of those years, in particular the Holy Roman Empire subcategories, are already in the tree of Category:10th-century years by country so they shouldn't be merged directly to a year. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: you're welcome.

So as a first step in implementing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#Category:Years_and_decades_by_continent_(Early_Middle_Ages), I can go to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 27#Years_and_decades_by_continent;_list_of_nominated_categories_belonging_to_this_discussion take everything before 962, and feed it to the bot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I think they are now all done (tho you may wanna check) ... but with the exception of Category:Years of the 10th century in Europe and Category:Years of the 10th century in Europe, 'cos they include the year 1000, which wasn't part of your list. I suggest that the simplest solution is to merge/delete the year 1000 categories. Is that OK with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you mean to merge Category:1000 in Europe, that is certainly OK. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I reckon it means merging:

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At second thought I realize to have them deliberately omitted from the list because they are also part of the Category:1000s in Europe and Category:1000s in Asia which are fully diffused by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the way I implemented previous closes was to subst the template on the year 1000 category page, then to remove the parent "Years of the 10th century in Foo". I also edited the succeeding "category:Years of the 11th century in Foo" page, changing the link for the preceding category to "10th century in Foo". – Fayenatic London 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On former names of trans people in BLPs[edit]

Hey there. I was looking over this mess of an RfC made one and a half years ago out of interest. With hindsight, it's wasn't my finest moment on here and it's clear that I wrote things in not the best way because I felt under pressure. For this I just want to apologise to you for the messages I wrote. Furthermore with time to think about the proposals made in this RfC, I would now Oppose changes to the guidelines and leave it the way it was (and is), for many of the reasons you (and others) said. A strong rebuke from someone else isn't a reason to start accusing them of pushing an agenda as I did. The whole experience was, at least, a good lesson for me and I feel I'm a better editor for it. All the best! -NottNott|talk 05:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sailing categories[edit]

Hi, I see you have good knowledge of the category tree. I'm looking on the categories related to the sport of sailing and wonder what you would suggest as names for these categories (Category:World champions in sailing by class) if I try to align them. Smartskaft (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smartskaft

Each cat in Category:World champions in sailing by class is (or should be) a subcat of the relevant "foo class sailors" category.

The convention of Category:Sailors (sport) by class is consistently "foo class sailors", so I'd suggest that the world champion cats should be named "foo class world champions", as is already the case with a few such as Category:49er class world champions.

This wouldn't fit and speedy criterion, so it would need a full WP:CfD discussion. It could (and should) be done as a group nomination (see WP:CFD#HOWTO)

If you like the idea, but are unsure how to make a group nomination, I'd be happy to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will make the full nomination. Smartskaft (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical[edit]

Disappointed to see that @Mais oui!: decided to bale - is the proposed discussion about country categories still in process somewhere? Ben Mac Dui 12:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irish women in politics[edit]

Thank you for creating List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland and List of women members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, especially their well researched introductions. It looks to me as if they could well be candidates for FL. I realize you are more interested in DYK than GA, FA or FL, but this might be an opportunity to reach higher.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the encouragement, @Ipigott. I was inspired by a comment by @Noswall59 in a discussion at WT:WOMRED to get down to doing these (I had been vaguely meaning to do it for several years), and I am pleased with how they turned out. There are a few more such lists in the pipeline: ministers in Norniron, junior ministers in the Republic, and women members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom for Northern Irish constituencies (already in draft).

My one previous attempt at WP:FL was not encouraging. Some of the FL rules would have degraded the list with no apparent benefit, so I never bothered with FL again. Before starting these lists, I reviewed the FL criteria and reckoned I could avoid the pitfalls. So my plan has been to run them through WP:DYK first in the hope that exposure would help identify any glitches, and then take them to WP:FL.

Your kind words will help me keep my nerve about doing it. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you intend to go for FL sooner or later. The UK House of Commons draft is coming along very well too. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: I'm feeling a bit frustrated with the FL process, and could use an outside view. Please could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland/archive1? Input there or comments here, as you see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked quickly through the comments to date. I am surprised the reviewer seems to have opposed without responding to your additional comments. I'm also surprised that you received no recognition for all the positive aspects of the table and the informative introduction. If I am not mistaken, for it to be promoted to FL, you need support from several editors. I'm afraid I'm not really an expert on lists, especially not on sortable lists, but I still think it is well up to FL standard. I'll try to look at it in more detail tomorrow if I have time but I am tied up with other things at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ipigott. This isn't going anywhere soon, so no rush. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%89:22sep/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt.Col.Thita_Manitkul

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thita_Manitkul Edit

https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%89:22sep/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt.Col.Thita_Manitkul

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thita_Manitkul

English? Sry85 deleted her Thai Wikipedia And Using the Wrong English Version intentionally.How can the person who is not neutrality in politic be writing Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.97.171 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what that message is supposed to mean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of the Alte Nationalgalerie[edit]

Hi, There are several paintings in the Category:Collection of the Alte Nationalgalerie; if you must start a category for the paintings please move the rest and relate the 2 cats.

On a wider point, these works belong to the Berlin State Museums (or strictly the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation) who in the recent past have moved their collections between sub-institutions, and buildings between sub-institutions, in a very free way. I think things have been relatively stable in the last few years, but it is arguably inappropriate to categorize by the building that objects are in at a particular point. For example, I doubt Francis Bacon's Portrait of Isabel Rawsthorne Standing in a Street in Soho will always be in that building. Mind you, I see I started Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin in 2010, so perhaps its all my fault. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnbod

Long time no talk. Hope you are well.

I only created Category:Paintings of the Alte Nationalgalerie because it was a redlink in Special:WantedCategories and seemed to be a sound part of a series. I have parented and populated it as you suggest.

Maybe Category:Paintings of the Alte Nationalgalerie and Category:Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin should be merged into a new Category:Paintings of the Berlin State Museums, and same with the collections cats. But its not really my sort of topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, thanks. I think they should probably be left now, until they start another merrygoround with the objects. Hope you are well! Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Episcopal churches" to "Episcopal church buildings" recats[edit]

The driving force behind these renames, ultimately, is that if an Episcopal church (USA) article exists, it's because the church building (and on occasion outbuildings) are listed on the NRHP. Episcopal parishes which are notable in their own right are vanishingly rare. The NRHP articles are organized by state (and often county) and by type of structure, which I'm pretty sure is what drove this. At any rate, now that half the states are one way and half the other, something needs to give. I am willing to put up a group nomination either way, but given the large numbers I'd like to put up the nomination that is likely to acceded to so we don't have to do it twice (or just argue endlessly about). Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mangoe: it should be a nomination with 2 options: either A/ rename all to "churches" or B/ rename all to "church buildings".

The last consensus at CfD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church_buildings, which decided on "churches". Since that decision has been subverted without consensus (via the shamefully shoddy Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 25#Category:Churches), there should at least be an option to restore the consensus .

If both options are available, with all cats tagged and listed, then we get a clear decision in one bite, as happened in 2015. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I remember the second discussion, and missed the first. Neither seems to me to have been satisfactory. I don't know that I have the patience for doing this all again, especially since a canvass to the various projects involved is going to set off a huge fight over WP:COMMONNAME on the one hand (which I have to say has proven to be a bad idea on at least one level) and the realities of the various kinds of "church" on the other, and people who really don't know what they're talking about on the third. I'm frankly tempted to leave this corner of the world a mess because, whatever the inconsistency, neither subset is confusingly or misleadingly wrong, and I have enough stress in my life at the moment to have to put up with the dramuh of a comprehensive discussion. Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Orthodox churches in India[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Orthodox churches in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Place Clichy (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British bio articles[edit]

Now you're threatening me with sanctions. Well don't bother, as I've already departed the discussion at Jamie Dornan. I'm not in the mood to be insulted (or bullied) any further, by anyone. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: At Talk:Jamie Dornan#Nationality_section_break, I asked you to desist from your overt British nationalist POV-pushing[20] in a discussion about NPOV description of nationality. You know that WP:NPOV is a core policy of en.wp, and that sanctions apply in this area; you have been warned many times before. If you choose to dismiss such a warning that as being insulted (or bullied), then you are indeed likely to find yourself facing sanctions sooner or later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BIG3 closing as closing?[edit]

You closed discussion on BIG3 categories as "closing". Did you mean "no consensus"?--TM 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: No, I meant I'm still writing the close. got distracted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will you finish whatever you've decided at Category:BIG3 coaches and the other BIG3 categories CFD?--TM 03:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Lee hee-beom[edit]

Can you help me make a story in his biography of Lee hee-beom as President of the Pyeongchang Organizing Committee for XXIII Olympic Winter Games in Pyeongchang 2018. His career of his life. https://www.pyeongchang2018.com/en/organizing-committee-president-ceo A Chris80 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A Chris80

there is already an article on him at Lee Hee-beom. If you would like help on how to develop the article, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. There are people there ready to help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

label bare References[edit]

Hi please label the bares reference that are on this page [21]. thank you (45.116.232.1 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You just added them. So you fix them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cossack raids on Ottoman Empire has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Cossack raids on Ottoman Empire, 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series with multiple main characters[edit]

Just a reminder: When you closed the CfD, you forgot to delete the page. A robot hasn’t deleted it yet. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 Ooops! I have just fed it to the bots[22].

Thanks for the reminder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takwene Help[edit]

Dear,

Can you please help me on publishing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Takwene and link it to wikidata.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Content 1986 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Content 1986

Sorry, I don't have time to help. But if you ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse, you'll find lots of friendly people, and I'm sure some of them can give you some pointers. --09:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Erasmus Smith[edit]

Hi, I'm unsure why you have done this. I don't think the article has much to do with politics and, in any event, the workgroup in question is moribund. I have no idea if there is a more viable subgroup of the Biography project regarding which the article might be suited (is there one for Education, perhaps?) but lumping it into something that is at best extremely tangential seems odd to me. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I was adding all Irish politicians to that workgroup, and Smith was Member of Parliament for Ardee. I don't see any harm, 'cos AFAIK adding him to that workgroup doesn't make him less visible anywhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. I completely forgot he was MP for Ardee (a rotten borough if ever there was one!). Sorry to have wasted your time. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: no prob. Sadly, most boroughs of the pre-union Parliament were pretty rotten, so Ardee isn't a rare case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parole[edit]

Hi, could you help me telling how to upload film posters? example Parole (film) . I tried to upload but its deleted by admin due to copyrighted issues.. thanks in advance ... :) Yourmistake (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourmistake: I have little involvement with images, so I'm not a good person to ask. But I do know that you shouldn't upload anything which has copyright problems.

You may want to ask at WP:FILM. Some of the editors there will know whether and when film posters may be uploaded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Yourmistake (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) As a copyright poster it's not "free" so can't be uploaded to Commons, but can be uploaded to English Wikipedia with the rationale of being used in one article, about the film, for identification purposes. It looks as if you uploaded it to Commons. Try uploading it to English Wikipedia instead, specifying the one article in which it will be used. Should work. PamD 07:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PamD Thank you :) I will try to upload in English wikipedia ... Yourmistake (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland project[edit]

Hi. I see that you are adding the project banners to bios. As I understand wikiprojects, bio articles should not be added to geographical projects simply because the person was born there, unless they have had a substantial impact on, in this case, Northern Ireland's history, culture, etc., or made substantial contributions, somehow, to Northern Ireland. I have seen two bios where you added the banner even though the person's career and adult life was spent elsewhere. Otherwise the project loses any impact and becomes a proxy for category: people from.... I'd be interested in finding out if there are reasons why I am wrong about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: I wasn't aware of that precise rule, tho I can appreciate the logic.

However, the broader issue is that the boundaries of WikiProjects are unvoidably fuzzy, so the choice of when to apply banners is inevitably subjective. That is particularly so with people from Ireland (north and south), which has exported its people on a huge scale for 2 centuries. The "emigrant made good" story is a big part of Irish culture north and south. So I err on the side of inclusivity.

In this case, I have been using AWB's list-making tool to identify Norniron-related articles which had no {{WikiProject Northern Ireland}} banner. I have tagged over 6000 of them, which simply would not have been been possible if I had reviewed each one individually. I'm sure there are some false positives, but they do little harm, and I am much more concerned about those I missed. There is no risk that the project loses any impact and becomes a proxy for category: people from, because the project's scope extends way beyond biogs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must, respectfully, disagree. Consider what would happen If every female bio were bannered with Wikiproject Women, or every bio of a person born in the US had the Wikiproject United States banner. IMO, this makes the projects meaningless, like the Wikiproject Biography project, whose only activity is to add their banner to articles. Instead of improving the articles that are important to the project, its members spend their time bannering articles that just make it harder for project members to identify and work on articles that are at the core of what the project seeks to accomplish. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: then we will have to agree to disagree.

Unless you can point me to some broad consensus that a) the use of Wikiproject banners should be restricted as you suggest, and b) the principle also applies to countries with mass emigration, then the exclude-all-the-diaspora view remains just your view.

I just checked the numbers. As of now, Category:WikiProject Northern Ireland articles contains 17,072 pages, of which just 362 are pages categorised as emigrants. Not much swamping there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating this poor horse any deader, It's not about emigration. Let's say you're a prominent professor in Belfast, teaching physics, and you have written some important books on Physics, so you are notable. But you eat Frosted Flakes and drive a BMW, and there is nothing in your life that is of especially historical or cultural significance to Northern Ireland, then I would argue that including you in the Northern Ireland project does not help the project, and would only distract project members from working on the project's core articles, such as "Northern Ireland", which is a B-class article and really deserves to be improved at least to GA class, or Belfast, which is a C-class article. IMO, that is the value of the Wikiprojects, not just to act as an inclusive list of anyone and anything that has any connection to the project's topic. Anyhow, I admire your work on Wikipedia and just thought I would give you my opinion, for what it's worth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Thanks for your kind words. However, I'm still not persuaded by your arguments. If you eat Frosted Flakes and drive a BMW, and there is nothing in your life that is of especially historical or cultural significance, then you ain't notable and there shouldn't be an article on you at all.

I think your concern about a project's core articles is already covered by using the banner's |importance= tag. Editors who want to focus on core articles such as Belfast and Northern Ireland can already find them among the 31 pages in Category:Top-importance Northern Ireland-related articles, just as they can find Lough Neagh in Category:High-importance Northern Ireland-related articles. I don't see how the 10,000 pages in Category:Unknown-importance Northern Ireland-related articles or the 2,000 in Category:Low-importance Northern Ireland-related articles distract anyone who wants to work on the core.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wexler[edit]

Hey there!, is it okay if you get an image of Kim Wexler for the characters article on Wikipedia. Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One: I am not an expert on images. But see Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial, which may help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neerali[edit]

Dear admin, could you help me resolving star cast confusions in Neerali Page.I believe the movie stars Mohanlal Parvatii Nair Suraj Venjaramoodu Nadiya Moidu. there are news article regarding it. some news article clearly mentioned Parvatii Nair doing female lead in the movie ..see here [[23]] and [[24]] but one editor believes star cast should be only Mohanlal and reverted my edits. pls give me a correct advice to resolve this issue.advance thanks Yourmistake (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourmistake: try asking at WP:3O. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked there.. thank you for your advice.... :) Yourmistake (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for teaching me about Wikipedia:Third opinion Yourmistake (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Projecting curosities[edit]

Hi, it is mild puzzlement to me that you allocated the Denny ship MV Princess Victoria (1939) which operated to/from Larne to WikiProject_Ireland whilst the Belfast ships MV Hibernia (1949) and MV Cambria (1949) which operated the Irish sea from Dublin-Holyhead you put into WikiProject Northern Ireland (I'm hoping to expand these two a little at some point). And I note TSS Princess Maud (1934) was left in Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Maritime. (actually you seem to be listed as a project member). I have no issues whichever way ... I am just mildly fascinated! Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Djm-leighpark

No conscious exclusion; it's just matter of what gets picked up in each AWB run. MV Cambria (1949) should be in both -- built in Norniron, so belongs in both Ireland in NI. I won't be removing anything from Irish Maritime; this is all about adding whichever projects fall within scope.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:MV Stena Hollandica[edit]

I do not understand why this one and the entry for its sister ship should be part of Project Ireland. As far as a know they were built to trundle backwards and forewards between Essex, which is in England and Rotterdam (which isn't, but it's still quite a hike from Dublin). That's what they do. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious (to others) and/or it's a bit of a trivial question, but I keep noticing it on my watchlist and it sets me wondering each time. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles01

Thanks, good catch. Unfortunately someone has placed Category:Stena Line as a subbcat of every country in which it operates, so all of Stena Line got picked up in my WP:AWB list-making, and I hadn't spotted how wide it had gone. I have untagged[25] MV Stena Hollandica, and will check the rest of Category:Stena Line.

I don't hold with that sort of categorisation; the head article should be in all those cats, but all articles related to the company. So I have massively trimmed[26] the parent cats of Category:Stena Line.

Thanks again for the headsup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an RfC[edit]

Hello, can you tell me what the best method is for requesting the closing of an RfC? This discussion seems dormant to me, and I see no consensus, so it seems best to bring it to a close. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheOldJacobite

List it at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's simple. Thank you! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, to see if you can please take part in this discussion in the Colombia article i added the tourism section and put better images in the article and the user User:JShark has reverted my editions ten times, I appreciate that you help solve this.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveCaracas: You have both been edit-warring outrageously, and would usually be both blocked without warning for that. However, I don't like blocking an editor who has asked for help to resolve the situation, so I have posted a warning to both of you.

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want a concensus.[edit]

I want a concensus. The other user just told me that he didn't care about the opinions of the other users. --JShark (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the following message from the user ILoveCaracas (talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombia&diff=831508383&oldid=831508165 Revision as of 23:10, 20 March 2018 (edit) (undo) (thank) ILoveCaracas (talk | contribs) (i dont care if portugal is a featuring artcile, try to delete that images there before that block you)

@JShark: You have both been edit-warring outrageously, and would usually be both blocked without warning for that. However, I don't like blocking an editor who has asked for help to resolve the situation (as ILoveCaracas did), so I have posted a warning to both of you.

Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being aware and helping. I added a new section in the talk page of the Colombia article explaining what happened and showing what I want and what JShark wants, to see if you could help--ILoveCaracas (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category move revert[edit]

Hi, I am concerned over a non controversial page move from Category:Films based on Pride and Prejudice to Category:Films and TV series based on Pride and Prejudice. The move was done without discussion by interested parties. Reason being the category in question has uses "Film" that basically represents all forms of motion picture—may it be television. I have tried to move it my self but I cannot, only to be referred to an administrator.

Cheers Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 00:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion because there was never a conflict regarding the category, until I made the move, I told the user what can be done to reach a consensus, but then, he prefers to go with administrators to solve his problem. In fact, he never asked me or argued with me about why I did this.--Philip J Fry / talk 00:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyanchoka and Philip J Fry: I have reverted the WP:BOLD move by User:Philip J Fry. Please use WP:CFD to seek a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguayan clubs[edit]

I see why (although I 100% disagree) you are opposed to moving from 'footballers' to 'players' when there is a multisport club and en.wp has articles about other sections. Why, however, have you opposed all the Paraguayan CFDS moves when, as far as I can see, all of the articles are purely about football teams, even those that are part of a wider multipart club? The same goes for Spain as well... Giant Snowman 16:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I do wish you could step outside the en.wp box, and start looking at the ambiguity issue from a real-world perspective instead of focusing on the artefacts of en.wp naming policies.

Where a "Club X" plays more than one sport, the ordinary, real-world meaning of "Club X players" means players of any sport for that club. That ambiguous reality is a property of the real world out there, and is not altered by the scope or title of en.wp articles.

At WP:CFDS, I asked you a very simple question[27]: have you checked that none of the clubs involved are multi-sport clubs? In those cases, "players" would be ambiguous.

You evaded my question,[28] and replied the articles about the football clubs only.

I find this sort of misleading evasiveness time-wasting and very tedious. Why could you not simply give the direct, honest answer "yes, Club X and Club Y. But ..." ???

Instead, @Armbrust did the checking, and revealed that your answer was misleading. I WP:assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary, and fter that I doubt your good faith here.

I think "foo players" is a bad naming convention in all circumstances, and indefensible where there is ambiguity. Since I can not trust any of your assurances about the nature of the clubs, I oppose speedy renaming of all of them. They need a full discussion, where more editors can decide a) whether to uphold a silly naming convention, b) if yes, more eyes can check for the ambiguities about which you remain in denial.

It would be much better for all sportspeople-by-club categories to follow the convention of Gaelic games, where all such categories are named "Club X hurlers" or "Club X Gaelic footballers". Sure, multi-sport clubs are the norm in the GAA, but the sport is still spelt out even for single-sport clubs. No ambiguity, no arguments; all simple.

Yes, multi-sport clubs are less common in other spheres, but it is much too timewasting to treat multi-sport clubs as as an exception when some editors try to deny the existence of self-evident ambiguities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if the wider multi-sport club doesn't have an article on en.wp, and, as far as our readers are concerned, it's only known for the football team, then what is the point of having unecessary disambiguation. That is what you have, continually, failed to convince me or others at WT:FOOTBALL about. Giant Snowman 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You seem to have missed what I wrote, so I'll repeat myself: That ambiguous reality is a property of the real world out there, and is not altered by the scope or title of en.wp articles.

By your logic, if en.wp had no article on Africa, then the continent would cease to exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Nope - by my logic, which is reflected in actual Wikipedia practice, we don't create an article at BHG (astronaut) just because there is also possibly notable topics of BHG (artist) and BHG (jockey) in the wider world, we create it at just BHG - no unecessary disambiguation...and basically, if the multi sports clubs merited their own articles and their own categories then maybe you'd have a point, but not here. Giant Snowman 20:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: You are:

unwisely conflating the concept of "does not yet have an article" with "doesn't merit an article". That is particularly unwise when dealing with countries outside the anglosphere.
assuming that the absence of a head article on the team means that there will be no notable articles on its players. This happens repeatedly with soccer players whose career includes stints with clubs on which we do not have an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're never going to agree so let's leave that aspect. Another query - why have you opposed the moves where there is no wider sports club and/or opposed moves where the category (whether 'footballer' or 'player') does not match the actual team name? Giant Snowman 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, BrownHairedGirl. You have new messages at WP:CFDS.
Message added 11:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CfD marked for closing[edit]

I noticed that you marked this CfD as "Closing" in Feb 2018, but all the respective categories still have CfD notices on them. Perhaps the closing got interrupted?—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was also brought up above at #BIG3_closing_as_closing? As an alternative, we can also reopen the CfD. No worries, we are all WP:VOLUNTEERS here. Let me know how you want to proceed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the CfD. No problem if you still choose to close it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 14. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - typo on WikiProject banner shell[edit]

Greetings, For WP Catholicism articles, a number of their talk pages contain a typo WikiProject banner shellhell|1= when WP Ireland was added. For example: Talk:Richard O'Reilly at 10:28, 22 March 2018‎ BrownHairedGirl. I have corrected a few of them & am now being interrupted by life. At here for March 23, subsection "Removed" is a list of those articles. If you are able to correct these talk pages typo that would be helpful. Otherwise I will eventually correct the pages. Note - I started at the bottom of the list. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, @JoeHebda, and for the v helpful explanation. Looks like there was an error in one of my regexes, and it seeems to have broken on about 20 pages. I'll fix them now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeHebda: all done. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers BrownHairedGirl! I understand completely--these surprises happen from time to time :-) — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collins (Irish leader)[edit]

On second thoughts, I couldn't actually be bothered to take this to ANI myself. @Casliber: if you really want to make a big stand denouncing a reproach to an editor taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to a content issue, please open an ANI discussion yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Can you scan the recent talk page discussion here, my impression is of a major decade long copy vio problem. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ceoil

I have scanned the discussion at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)#Irish_name, and ... oh dear.

It has turned into shitfight, started by your unnecessarily antagonistic comment at 20:56 yesterday,[29] and stoked by many of your comments thereafter, e.g. unfocused belligerence ... most hypocritical ... you are were looking for reassurance and validation ... shrill and hysterical.

You may or may not have a valid substantive point, but any merit in your analysis is entirely lost in your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and your barrage of NPA on other editors. There is absolutely zero chance of anything productive arising out of a discussion where you address people like that.

If I had stumbled across this discussion myself, I would have promptly blocked you for personal attacks, without warning. However, I don't like blocking editors who who come to me asking for help or advice, so I won't block you now. But if you resume personal attacks, I will block you.

So for now I will post a warning your talk page, and I will close the discussion at Talk:Michael Collins (Irish_leader)#Irish_name. And I suggest you take a break from your keyboard until you feel less angry.

Sometime in the future, maybe after a week or more, you may want to reopen your concerns about the article. But you should start by setting them out in detail, without accusing anyone. And if you want to have a productive discussion about them, it would be best to precede them with a clear apology to the editors who got blasted when you were having a bad day and not showing your best self.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the big stick tone BHG, it comes across as really patronising. should someone have blocked you for commenting on the editor rather than the action like this? Are you able to look at content yourself at all? Do you think the segments removed here were encyclopedic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Sigh. I didn't even try to assess the merits of the article, because I didn't want to become substantively involved. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I dismissed none of Ceoil's substantive points, and suggested a way to have a productive discussion about them.

Regardless of whether Ceoil's points are entirely right or entirely wrong, the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach taken by Ceoil overnight is no way to reach a consensus.

Anyway, since you think I should have been blocked, I'll raise this at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question not a statement. Yours was a definite ad hominem but it was a while ago now, so of course it is not preventative in any way. Hence raising it would be a waste of time. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. If people don't keep half an eye on what they are trying to govern we all go down the plughole. According o how your managing it, if an editor is right but rude they "lose". This is a problem Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of inflammatory, looking at the last 3 segments of this post...this was just escalating rather than dampening. It just comes over as patronising...you really couldn't have worded this better? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: this is not complicated. En.wp works by WP:CONSENSUS, and content disputes are resolved by consensus. When an editor takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, the discussion descends into a fight ... so consensus is not attainable, so no fix is agreed.

If you actually want problems to be fixed, then please support policies such as WP:CIVIL which allow problems to be discussed in a way which can help build a consensus for change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok then...[edit]

Can you at least fully lock the article before further arm-wrestling ensues...which it will do very soon. And we will seek wider opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:RFPP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Thomson article assessment[edit]

Hi BrownHairedGirl, thanks for adding WP Northern Ireland to Talk:Hugh Thomson. You auto-classified this article as a stub, I think based on the same rating by WP Biography - is that correct? That rating was added in December 2012 (to this version of the article), and since then the article has been significantly expanded and improved. I recently requested an assessment because I believe the article is at least at Start class or C class status. Would you mind taking a look at the article and perhaps reconsidering your rating? And, if you still consider it a stub, I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for how to improve it. Thanks! extabulis (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker): extabulis, I have reassessed it as a Start-class and added the Ireland Project banner because it is the whole island project. ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @Ww2censor.

@Extabulis: I hope that is all OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl and ww2censor, it is, thanks! extabulis (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor and Extabulis: I only just looked at the article now. I wonder if it's not more C-class than Start-class on the Quality scale? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Extabulis and BrownHairedGirl: I do tend to be rather conservative in my article assessments and as you know well they are quite subjective, so it's just my opinion. I think it's fair but will not get upset if you uprate it to C-class. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor thanks. I do think that in general it's best to stay on the conservative with article assessments. But in this case I think you was a little too conservative. So I'll up it to a C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Elvira Pombo Holguín[edit]

Hello BrownHairedGirl,

could you please update information about María Elvira Pombo Holguín?

She is currently the ambassadress of Colombia in Germany.

Thank you in advance,

Miguel Hernandez (Colombian citizen living in Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.111.139 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[edit]

Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Your block of Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems harsh and unnecessary. It also doesn't seem to violate the fool rules. What am I missing?- Mr X 🖋 20:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOLR #1: "Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace,[8] will be treated as vandalism. Depending on the nature, you risk having your account possibly blocked from editing.".

Also WP:Rules_for_Fools#AfDs: don't tag the nominated page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so it was for the tag on Category:Category namespace. I would have thought a level one warning and a revert would have sufficed for an editor who has a clean block record. Hell, we give drive by vandals and Nazis better treatment than that!- Mr X 🖋 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We assume that drive-by vandals don't know better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. Did it escape your notice that WP:FOOLS says "A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day."? I've inquired at WP:AN, in case you have an interest in weighing in there.- Mr X 🖋 20:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just want to get on with building an encyclopedia, rather than waste time on meta discussions about precisely how big a trout to use on people who disrupt it with "jokes" which were stale years ago.

Thanks for your comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad block. Period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, just unblock them. It's an editor who's been around since all of 2016. Is this really the way you want to register your personal dislike for April fools day? By blocking a productive editor? GMG ^talk 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you: WP:AN#Block review. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHG for future reference if an editor makes an April Fools joke and you disagree with it .... warn them first ..... don't instantly block them as that's just asking for a desysop right there, Failing that come 1st April stay off of Wikipedia for a day ..... It was a bad block no doubt about it. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Block reduced to time served, and lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. This was borderline stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018[edit]

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not perfect[edit]

I believe you were acting in good faith with the block above but you have to remember that WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year. I went ahead and added a footnote for Rule #1, I would like your input seeing that it did effect you above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: you didn't supply a diff, so it's unclear which of your ~15 edits you are referring to. However, on a quick scan, I don't see any big change, just a lot more words. More WP:CREEP

Look, the underlying issue is your view that WP:FOOLS is in my opinion only improves each year. I strongly disagree with that; from my POV, the flood of juvenile "let's delete X 'cos I don't like it LOL" AFDs gets more tedious each year, and yesterday's crop was no exception. The only one which made me even smile was the nom of yesterday's AfD page, to make it all stop.

Clearly, we we will not agree about the funniness, which is exactly my point. Sense of humour varies widely by language, country, culture, class, gender, religion, level of education, etc ... so most humour has a very limited audience.

En.wp has editors from a huge variety of backgrounds, so shared humour is rare. Sadly some people — esp younger people — seem unaware that their humour has limited appeal, so feel entitled to inflict it on others.

So, whatever the details of your tweaks, they amount to yet more rules designed to legitimate the antics of editors who assume that their worldview is universal and show no sign of respect for those who don't share it. Tedious.

I'd be way more impressed if you devoted your energies to ensuring that WP:FOOLS antics were kept out of the workspaces which editors use to build and maintain en.wp. So no "joke" XFDs, RFCs, etc, unless they are kept clear of the usual workspaces.

I doubt we'd get (or need) a new Fools: namespace, but we could have a WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1/Fools linked from a hatnote on WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1, and so on for any other such venues.

That way

those who think that "Delete Donald Trump cos Lolz" is earth-shatteringly funny know where to find it
those who don't want to encounter it don't have to
the AfD day log isn't clogged with more "jokes" than real AfDs, as it was yesterday
nobody who isn't playing WP:FOOLS needs to waste time closing these things, 'cos they are not on the usual work pages

Everybody happy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal, and we could have the venue arranged like RfD where we don't create a subpage for every nomination, and instead directly edit the log. This wouldn't mess up afdstats etc. wumbolo ^^^ 19:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your unblock summary, I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, I have to remind you of a previous comment you left at a past ANI: when I spot a perceived problem editor, but lack the time and/or stable connectivity to do the due diligence required of a admin, I leave a quick note for another admin, or at ANI, or I leave it until I can devote the required time. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 16:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wumbolo: at the time I made the block, I thought I had done due diligence: I checked WP:FOOLS carefully.
  In hindsight, I see that there is a body of opinion which takes a more lenient attitude than I did to April Fools disruption outside the already over-broad boundaries of WP:FOOLS, but I'm not sure that a reasonable level of homework would have clarified the appropriate response. My judgement about the breach of WP:FOOLS was not an issue at WP:AN, just the level of response.
  Anyway, have fun trawling my ANI contribs for words to take out of context, as you did with that comment[30] about an admin who had entirely misread every aspect of both the substantive issue and the user's conduct[31]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary usage[edit]

Your quantity of edits is too large for xtools (the limit is 350,000)! You may want to adjust the link [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=BrownHairedGirl&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia my recent '''edit summary''' usage] in User:BrownHairedGirl#My edit summary usage accordingly (though it may be better to retain the xtools link in some form, as the tool may expand its limit in the future.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i: Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category close request[edit]

Hi. The long-term RfD request for the category 'Broken hearts' (which should probably be renamed to 'Broken heart' per a suggestion in the discussion) has seen better days. You closed other sections on the page, and I'm concerned it will be left there. Would you please consider closing it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Links, please

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. Here is the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Category:Broken_hearts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. At least it's moving again. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

In connection with the success of your List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, I was wondering whether I could encourage you to join WP:Women in Red (via "Join the WikiProject" in the box at the top RH corner). I thought with your interest in women and women's biographies you had been a member for some time, but I've just seen that you are neither on our main mailing list nor on our project membership list. I think joining the project would encourage others to follow in your footsteps. I think you could also offer advice on how we could improve the effectiveness of the projet.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DreamDoll songs[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:DreamDoll songs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty[edit]

Your username sounds pretty. 2600:1:F142:E9BE:884D:9655:8673:1703 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Write a biography[edit]

I need a reliable source to write about my biography on Wikipedia please contact me if you are available Markpain (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Markpain: No.

See the policy at WP:COI, and an explanatory essay at WP:Autobiography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category moving[edit]

Hello there! I very much appreciate you taking on the task of moving categories as you stated when you closed this discussion. I see you reverted the botched manual edits, but are you still going to move the others? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thanks, @Daybeers.

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 27#Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_in_Australia as "rename all"[32].
AFAICS, the bot did all the renaming with its usual thoroughness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover mistake[edit]

I uploaded a new version of the Twenty One Pilots album at File:Twenty_One_Pilots_album_cover.jpg, but the reference didn't get processed properly. Can you please edit it so it displays correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMGWP (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assisting this editor on my user talk page now - you can consider this question resolved here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Oshwah. Files are not really my thing anyway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 2018 UPSL Season[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2018 UPSL Season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]